Sherrod v Breitbart - O'Connor Motion to Compel Subpoena to USDA 3-3-2014

8/20/2019 Sherrod v Breitbart - O'Connor Motion to Compel Subpoena to USDA 3-3-2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sherrod-v-breitbart-oconnor-motion-to-compel-subpoena-to-usda-3-3-2014 1/153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHIRLEY SHERROD,

Plaintiff,

)

)

)))

v.

ANDREW BREITBART, LARRY

O’CONNOR, AND JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

)

))

)

))

)

Case No. 1:11-cv-00477 (RJL)

DEFENDANT LARRY O’CONNOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH

SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES

COMES NOW Defendant Larry O’Connor, by and through counsel, and hereby moves

the Court to compel compliance with subpoenas directed to the United States Department of

Agriculture and the Executive Office of the President of the United States. In support of his

motion, O’Connor refers to the memorandum attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), after the February 20, 2014 hearing, counsel for

O’Connor conferred further with counsel for the Department of Justice and counsel for Shirley

Sherrod regarding resolution of this matter. Counsel for the Government refused to make any

changes to its initial proposal and opposes the relief sought by this motion.

Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 93 Filed 03/03/14 of 3



2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark I. Bailen

Bruce W. Sanford (356568)

Bruce D. Brown (457317)Mark I. Bailen (459623)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-861-1715

Fax: 202-861-1783

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant Larry O’Connor

Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 93 Filed 03/03/14 of 3



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHIRLEY SHERROD,

Plaintiff,

))

)))

v.

ANDREW BREITBART, LARRYO’CONNOR, AND JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

)))))))

Case No. 1:11-cv-00477 (RJL)

DEFENDANT LARRY O’CONNOR’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO

COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE EXECUTIVE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 93-1 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 18



i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................2

III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................6

A. The documents O’Connor seeks are relevant to the parties’ claims anddefenses ...................................................................................................................6

1. The USDA and EOP discovery relates to whether Sherrod canestablish that the Blog Post caused her injury ............................................. 6

2. Information from the USDA and the EOP that supports defendants’

evaluation of Sherrod and her speech is relevant ...................................... 10

B. The Department of Justice’s proposal for production of USDA and EOPdocuments is unreasonably deficient.....................................................................11

1. The Government’s proposed search terms would fail to uncoverapproximately half of the responsive documents from USDA .................11

2. The DOJ’s proposal would fail to uncover the communications withinExecutive Office of the President..............................................................12

C. O’Connor’s proposal for the production of USDA documents is reasonable

and not burdensome...............................................................................................12

D. O’Connor’s proposal for the production of EOP documents is reasonable andnot burdensome ..................................................................................................... 13

E. After sitting on its hands for more than three months, the Government cannotnow complain that a timely production would be too burdensome ordisruptive ...............................................................................................................14

IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................15




ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Brown v. Petrolite Corp.,965 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1992).......................................................................................................6

Cheney v. U.S. District Court ,542 U.S. 367 (2004) ..........................................................................................................13, 14

Moldea v. New York Times Co.,22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................10

Phila. Newspapers v. Hepps,475 U.S. 767 (1986) ................................................................................................................10

Schoen v. Wash. Post ,246 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1957)...................................................................................................7

Simon v. Shearson Lehman Bros,895 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 6

Zinda v. La.-Pac. Corp.,409 N.W.2d 436 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds,440 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. 1989) .................................................................................................... 6




I. INTRODUCTION

The United States Government refuses to make a reasonable production of documents in

response to Defendant Larry O’Connor’s subpoenas duces tecum on the United States

Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”). The

subpoenas seek information relating to Plaintiff Shirley Sherrod, a former political appointee at

the USDA, and her forced resignation on July 19, 2010 by Secretary Tom Vilsack. Agreeing

with commentary by Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor regarding a March 27, 2010 speech

she gave to a Georgia chapter of the NAACP, the USDA repeatedly asserted that she was not

acting appropriately for a public official before reversing course two days later.1 Despite this

central role in the case, the Government claims that it is has no relevant information and should

not have to make a comprehensive search for documents in response to the subpoenas.

The relevance, however, flows directly from Sherrod’s claims for defamation, false light

and intentional infliction of emotional distress. For each, she must establish that O’Connor’s and

Breitbart’s actions were the natural and proximate cause of any harm that she allegedly has

suffered. The USDA knew far more about Sherrod’s controversial speech than Breitbart and

O’Connor when they commented on it in the July 19, 2010 blog post (the “Blog Post”). Yet

despite this knowledge – which included Sherrod’s “side” of the story – the USDA nevertheless

forced her to resign and publicly chastised her. Whether there were other reasons for the

USDA’s actions, including whether the Blog Post was a pretext for the USDA to force her out,

are legitimate questions and relevant to whether defendants proximately caused her injury. The

subpoenas also seek evidence concerning the Government’s evaluation of Sherrod’s remarks and

her conduct in office, which would further support and defend O’Connor and Breitbart’s

opinions, commentary, and criticism of Sherrod.

1 The subpoenas to the USDA and the EOP are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.




2

O’Connor served the subpoenas on the USDA and EOP in November 2013. Since then,

the Government has made one and only one proposal on December 19, 2013, for a process to

search, identify, and collect responsive documents. An analysis of the Government’s proposal

based on USDA documents already made public showed that it would fail to uncover

approximately half of the responsive documents. To ensure a more complete production,

counsel for O’Connor provided the Government a counter-proposal with additional keywords to

search the critical 16-day time period in July 2010 surrounding Sherrod’s resignation.

Thereafter, to accommodate the Government’s claims of alleged burden, O’Connor has reduced

significantly the number of search terms in his proposal. But for three months the Government

has refused to add search terms or even begin collecting documents. And just this past week it

has claimed that it will take several months merely to collect the e-mails while it reserves all

objections on relevance and privilege.

Accordingly, O’Connor hereby moves to compel production of documents from the

USDA and EOP and seeks an order requiring the Government to make a prompt production of

documents based on the reasonable keyword search protocol attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The USDA’s role in this case began well before BigGovernment.com published a single

word about Shirley Sherrod in Andrew Breitbart’s Blog Post on July 19, 2010. Four days earlier,

on July 15, at least three USDA officials, including Sherrod’s direct supervisor, were alerted to a

video clip on YouTube that showed Sherrod making her racially charged speech that is the

subject of this lawsuit.2 The video contained Sherrod’s statements that she was reluctant to give

“the full force” of her assistance to a troubled white farmer, but that she later decided to help

2 Big Government, NAACP Bigotry in their ranks, YOUTUBE (July 19, 2010), available athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY (attached as Exhibit 4).




3

him. In e-mail exchanges with her supervisor, other USDA officials, and the two U.S. senators

from Georgia, Sherrod claimed that the video was taken out of context, emphasized that she had

helped the white farmer, and noted that the anecdote in the video clip referred to events from

more than twenty years before.3

Sherrod claims that the Blog Post was defamatory because it was “misleading,”4 but if

there was anyone who should not have been “misled,” it was Sherrod’s bosses at the USDA.

They knew Sherrod. They had vetted her background prior to her appointment.5 They were

familiar with her track record in that position. And they were on notice, from Sherrod herself, of

the purported full “context” of her controversial speech.

Notwithstanding their knowledge of these key facts, dozens of internal government e-

mails demonstrate that USDA officials, with encouragement from the White House, were among

the harshest critics of Sherrod after the video made news. USDA e-mails released under the

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) reveal a chain reaction of outrage that rippled swiftly

through the agency and culminated in Sherrod’s forced resignation. For example, on the

morning of July 19, Chris Mather, the USDA’s communications director, e-mailed colleagues:

“Urgent, This is horrible.”6 Krysta Harden, an assistant secretary at the USDA who was

traveling with Secretary Tom Vilsack that day, responded that the Secretary was “absolutely sick

and mad over the S Sherrod issue” and wanted her put on administrative leave “immediately.”7

3 The video had been uploaded to YouTube by O’Connor, who had intended to set the video as“private” for viewing only by his colleagues. But unbeknownst to O’Connor at the time, heinadvertently made it available for public viewing. As many as 40-50 people viewed the video,and at least two separately e-mailed Sherrod on July 15, 2010. Sherrod responded, copying theUSDA officials. See Selection of E-mails Released by USDA Pursuant to FOIA (attached asExhibit 5) at FOIA Production (“FP”) 001, 003.4 E.g., Compl. ¶ 4 [Dkt. 1, Ex. B].

5 Ex. 5, FP 013-019.6 Ex. 5, FP 005.7 Ex. 5, FP 056.




4

John Berge, Harden’s deputy, wrote a few hours later, “She should be fired. As an appointee,

she has no recourse.”8 Harden agreed: “This is awful,” she wrote. “If [Vilsack] can right out fire

her he will or ask for her resignation. How soon can he move?”9

By 6:35 p.m., Cheryl Cook, a USDA deputy undersecretary, had placed four increasingly

panicked phone calls to Sherrod.10 During the fourth call, Cook demanded that Sherrod, who

was driving, pull over to the side of the road and immediately submit her resignation. According

to Sherrod, Cook told her that the White House had demanded the resignation.11 Nearly

simultaneously, Secretary Vilsack released the first of two public statements condemning

Sherrod. In his first public comment, the Secretary stated that “there is zero tolerance for

discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person.”12

The next morning on July 20, 2010, Christopher Lu, a top adviser to President Obama, e-mailed

a USDA official and said that the White House was pleased with “how quickly” the USDA “took

this action.”13 Later that day, after Sherrod took to the airwaves to broadcast her story, Secretary

Vilsack doubled-down in a second public statement, stating that he demanded her resignation for

two reasons: one, because the controversy would make it more difficult for the USDA to move

forward on correcting past civil rights injustices at the USDA, and two, “rightly or wrongly,” the

controversy would cause situations where her decisions would be called into question.14 As a

USDA official told the press, “She did tell her side but it didn’t matter. Her comments

undermine the public trust that we are equal and fair.”15

8 Ex. 5, FP 007.9 Ex. 5, FP 009.10 Ex. 5, FP 055.11 Compl. ¶ 76.12 Ex. 5, FP 023.13 Ex. 5, FP 028.14 Ex. 5, FP 036.15 Ex. 5, FP 033.




5

Even as the agency was doing all it could to sever ties with Sherrod, the e-mails make

clear that high-ranking agency officials understood the “full context” of Sherrod’s speech all

along. For instance, more than two hours before Cook’s final phone call to Sherrod demanding

her resignation, Dallas Tonsager, the USDA undersecretary of rural development, e-mailed

Secretary Vilsack and other officials explaining Sherrod’s side of the story:

Shirley explained to Cheryl [Cook] that this piece of tape shows only one small part of a longer story she told of her personal transformation beyond race, and isabout a farmer who came to see her in 1986 when she was working as a farmadvocate. The rest of the story apparently explains how she came to assist thisfarmer and many other white farmers during this time period.16

Of course, the video excerpt in the Blog Post itself makes clear that Sherrod ultimately

helped the white farmer and that she was discussing “her personal transformation beyond race.”17

And Sherrod herself had already explained them to her bosses before and right after the Blog

Post was published.18 In other words, Secretary Vilsack, the USDA, and the White House could

not have been duped by a “misleading” video or a critical blog post; they understood all of the

relevant facts better than anyone. Yet they chose to cut ties with Sherrod anyway – and they did

so hastily, harshly, and heavy-handedly, only then to abruptly reverse course two days later and

offer her job back.

What is less clear at this stage is why the agency acted this way. The e-mails produced

under FOIA are heavily redacted and many appear to be missing completely. For instance, e-

mails about Sherrod’s role in Pigford v. Glickman, a high-profile class action lawsuit alleging

racial discrimination against black farmers by the USDA, and that lawsuit’s relation to Sherrod’s

termination, are redacted. In addition, the Government failed to produce any e-mails that were

16 Ex. 5, FP 008. See also Ex. 5, FP 020 (Vilsack’s chief of staff: “Has anyone had directconversation with the USDA staff to hear her explanation?” Deputy chief of staff: “Yes…”).17 Compl., Ex. A.18 Ex. 5, FP 001, 003.




6

collected from Sherrod’s own e-mail account. Also missing are e-mails or other documents

explaining Secretary Vilsack’s complete about-face on July 21. The Government contends that

his public statement – claiming that, based on the release of the full video of the speech by the

NAACP, her statements were taken out of context – fully explains the Government’s position.

But it doesn’t. The full video of the speech, which was released by the NAACP the night before,

provided no information that the USDA did not already have.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The documents O’Connor seeks are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.

O’Connor’s subpoenas to the USDA and the EOP target four main categories of

information: (1) communications between and among government officials and others regarding

Sherrod, her speech and her termination; (2) documents relating to the speech itself, which was

given in March 2010; (3) documents addressing Sherrod’s appointment and performance in

office as a USDA official; and (4) documents concerning the defendants. While the subpoenas

broke down the categories into specific requests to assist the Government’s collection of the

information, there are not, as the Government incorrectly asserts, more than 80 different

categories of requests. Each category is directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.

1. The USDA and EOP discovery relates to whether Sherrod can establish that

the Blog Post caused her injury.

It is well established that Sherrod must prove that it was the defendants’ alleged conduct,

not something else, that caused her harm. Simon v. Shearson Lehman Bros, 895 F.2d 1304, 1316

(11th Cir. 1990) (applying California law) (defamation plaintiff terminated from job bears

burden of proving “the slanderous statement was both factual cause and proximate cause of

[plaintiff’s] termination”); see also Brown v. Petrolite Corp., 965 F.2d 38, 43 (5th Cir. 1992) (a

defamation plaintiff must prove that defamatory language proximately caused his or her injury);




7

Zinda v. La.-Pac. Corp., 409 N.W.2d 436, 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) (plaintiff’s “burden to show

that the loss was attributable to the defamation, not to [his] wrongful discharge.”), aff’d in part,

rev’d in part on other grounds, 440 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. 1989). As the D.C. Circuit has held, there

is “no doubt” that a defamation plaintiff must show that her harm “was the natural and proximate

consequence of the alleged inaccuracies contained in the article, and not the result of other

causes[.]” Schoen v. Wash. Post , 246 F.2d 670, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

The Complaint alleges that the Blog Post caused her harm: “by causing Mrs. Sherrod’s

forced resignation from the USDA”; “by inhibiting [her] successful performance of her previous

job duties”; “by limiting [her] future career prospects”; and “by subjecting [her] to unwanted

attention, harassment and persecution.”19 In addition, O’Connor has asserted the affirmative

defense that he cannot be liable for harm caused by “the acts of others.”20 To the extent any of

Sherrod’s alleged harm was caused by the Obama Administration, Secretary Vilsack, or others,

that evidence is directly relevant to claims and defenses in this case.

Furthermore, the existence of this evidence is far from speculative. The FOIA e-mails

show that Sherrod’s role in the Pigford v. Glickman litigation (known as “ Pigford I ”), and not the

Blog Post, may well have caused Secretary Vilsack to ask for her resignation. Pigford I involved

allegations by African-American farmers that federal loan officers at the USDA had

“systematically thwarted [the farmers’] attempts to borrow money to farm” because of their

race.21 Sherrod, her husband Charles, and an organization that they appear to have resurrected

for purposes of the Pigford litigation, New Communities, Inc., were major claimants in the case.

Just days before Sherrod was appointed to her federal position at USDA, New

19 Compl., p. 36, Count 1.20 Answer of Defendant Larry O’Connor [Dkt. 38], p. 13, Aff. Defense 18.21 Sharon LaFraniere, U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination, N.Y. TIMES

(April 25, 2013), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?_r=0.




8

Communities and the Sherrods were awarded more than $13 million for their claims in Pigford I ,

including $300,000 to the Sherrods for purported “mental anguish” caused by USDA. The

settlement was the largest awarded in the Pigford I litigation. In her book, The Courage to Hope,

Sherrod noted that her appointment as Georgia Director of Rural Development made her the boss

of the same administrators at USDA that she had had to “nudge and confront” during the Pigford

I case, implying that her role in Pigford I may not have endeared her to others at the agency.22

Thus, although Sherrod has tried to redirect attention away from her settlement and the

controversy surrounding whether Pigford I was “a magnet for fraud” and subject to systematic

abuse,

23

the USDA e-mails and other evidence reveal that Pigford I was very much part of the

discussion surrounding her termination.24

Indeed, during July 2010, a controversial bill was pending in Congress to appropriate

more than $1 billion for settlements to a second wave of plaintiffs in what is known as Pigford

II .25 USDA’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Krysta Harden and her deputy –

both of whom would have been responsible for helping to shepherd Pigford II funding legislation

through Congress – were among the first to call for Sherrod’s firing.26 They also immediately

began contacting key members of Congress, “authorizers” and “appropriators.”27 The e-mails

22 Shirley Sherrod, The Courage to Hope (Atria 2012) at 133.23 LaFraniere, supra note 21.24 For example, one heavily redacted USDA e-mail dated July 20, 2010 had a subject line thatreferenced Sherrod’s “Track B Decision.” Track B refers to the track in the Pigford I settlementwhere a claimant can attempt to prove actual damages (and thus obtain an increased award) asopposed to the standard settlement amount. Ex. 5, FP 041.25 President Obama would state just a few weeks after Plaintiff’s resignation that funding the$1.25 billion Pigford II settlement, which had been stalled in Congress for more than sevenmonths, was a “priority.” See Rachel Slajda, Obama: Pigford II Settlement For African-

American Farmers Is A ‘Priority,’ TALKING POINTS MEMO (Sept. 10, 2010), available athttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/obama-pigford-ii-settlement-for-african-american-farmers-is-a-priority.26 Ex. 5, FP 007, 009.27

See, e.g., Ex. 5, FP 054.




9

further show that the USDA and White House were assembling and sharing information about

Sherrod’s massive settlement in Pigford I .28

The NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, and Federation of Southern Cooperatives all

raised concern about Sherrod and possible adverse effects on pending Pigford II funding

legislation.29 Furthermore, after a meeting with Secretary Vilsack about her resignation on

August 24, 2010, Sherrod herself directly linked the Pigford II litigation and her termination in a

joint press conference with the Secretary: “I want to say thank you to the Secretary for the

updates on Pigford and the discussion we’ve had had this morning about what happened.”30

The e-mails also show that government officials who viewed the same video as Breitbart

and O’Connor and had even more information also perceived Sherrod’s story about the white

farmer as a racist tale and, as the Blog Post suggested, that she viewed her work through a “prism

of race and class distinctions.”31 The fact that USDA officials also were “deeply disturbed” by

Sherrod’s statements, notwithstanding their consideration of Sherrod’s explanation, suggests that

they acted for reasons separate and apart from anything Breitbart and O’Connor had done.32

There can be no dispute, as the e-mails document, that a number of factors were at play

when Sherrod was forced to resign. Yet the limited (and heavily redacted) information leaves a

number of open questions. For instance, why did the USDA and the White House time and

28 Ex. 5, FP 044 (internal correspondence regarding Sherrod’s Pigford I claim and decision,subject line: “HELP [SHERROD TRACK B DECISION].”), 039-041 (earlier correspondence insame e-mail chain regarding Sherrod’s Pigford I claim), 037 (asking aide to send informationabout Pigford to reporter), 042-043 (e-mail from reporter asking about Pigford II settlementfunding and whether her Pigford I settlement had anything to do with Sherrod’s hiring orresignation).29 Ex. 5, FP 029-030 (NAACP), 050-051 (Congressional Black Caucus), 047-049 (Federation ofSouthern Cooperatives).30 Transcript, USDA Press Conference (Aug. 24, 2010), available athttp://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2010/08/0421.xml (attached as Exhibit 6).31 Compl., Exhibit A.32 Ex. 5, FP 008.




10

again ignore Sherrod’s explanations? Why did USDA official Cheryl Cook claim that it was the

White House that had demanded her resignation when Secretary Vilsack later claimed that it was

his decision alone? Why did Secretary Vilsack completely reverse his decision when he knew

about the “context” of her remarks from Sherrod herself prior to her resignation? The

Government’s contention that the Secretary’s public comments are all that the parties need is not

a basis for refusing to provide relevant information concerning who and what was responsible for

allegedly injuring Sherrod as she claims.

2. Information from the USDA and the EOP that supports defendants’

evaluation of Sherrod and her speech is relevant.

O’Connor is entitled to information that will support his evaluation and characterization

of Sherrod and her speech. It is well-established that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving

falsity. See Phila. Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 775 (1986). To the extent that the

commentary in the Blog Post is substantially supported by information from the USDA and the

EOP, Sherrod cannot succeed on her defamation claim. Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d

310, 318-19 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“‘[s]ubstantial truth’ is a defense to defamation”).

The Blog Post commented that Sherrod viewed her work at USDA through a “prism of

race and class distinctions.”33 E-mails, documents and other information from the USDA that

show how Sherrod conducted her work during her short tenure at the USDA are thus directly

relevant. In her March 27, 2010 speech, Sherrod criticized current federal programs “with

business and industry” that had given “not one dime to black business.”34 She also spoke about a

family that had recently come to her for assistance concerning their “515 acres of land” and

33 Compl., Exhibit A.34 Transcript, NAACP Video of Ms. Sherrod’s March 27, 2010 Speech Available athttp://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/ (attached as Exhibit 7) at 21:2-12.




11

bemoaned to her audience that there was a “white man already lined up to buy it.”35 To the

extent USDA has similar information about Sherrod’s views and conduct, it is relevant.

B. The Department of Justice’s proposal for production of USDA and EOP documents

is unreasonably deficient.

1. The Government’s proposed search terms would fail to uncover

approximately half of the responsive documents from USDA.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) proposal principally includes (1) a search of e-mails

from a group of USDA employees for the names and titles of the parties to this action; and (2) a

search of the e-mail accounts of Sherrod and two of her Georgia State Rural Development

colleagues using just seven keyword search terms.36 To test the effectiveness of this proposal,

counsel for O’Connor ran the DOJ’s search terms through the incomplete and heavily redacted

FOIA documents. Approximately 46 percent of the documents did not contain a single term on

DOJ’s search term list, documents even the USDA acknowledged were responsive to the FOIA

requests concerning Secretary Vilsack’s decision to seek Sherrod’s resignation.37

For example, the DOJ’s proposal would have missed USDA’s Director of

Communications asking Secretary Vilsack’s Deputy Chief of Staff, “Did Shirley ever send us the

whole tape?”38 It also would have missed the response to that e-mail: “I never heard from her.”39

O’Connor’s proposal would capture those communications. Similarly, the DOJ proposal would

have failed to pick up the discussions between Secretary Vilsack and high-ranking members of

35 Id. at 23:24-24:1-9.

36 The DOJ’s search proposal is attached as Exhibit 8.37 See Memorandum of the Department of Justice [Dkt. 89] (filed Feb. 20, 2010) at 5(identifying FOIA request for all e-mails concerning Sherrod, her speech and her resignation,among other things).38 Ex. 5, FP 038.39 Ex. 5, FP 038. On July 15, a full four days before the Blog Post was published, a USDAofficial had also asked Sherrod for the tape of her full speech. See Ex. 5, FP 002 (“If you canlink me to the entire tape and I see this was out of context I will do what I can to get your entiremessage out.”). It appears that Sherrod never responded by e-mail and never provided the tape.




12

the White House including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and

Cabinet Secretary Christopher Lu.40

A search term list that fails to uncover half of the documents is unreasonably restrictive.

2. The DOJ’s proposal would fail to uncover the communications within

Executive Office of the President.

The DOJ’s proposal is restricted to the USDA’s documents and would not uncover

communications internal among White House staff. The EOP documents also have not been

collected and searched, even though the subpoena was served more than three months ago. The

limited, available documents from USDA strongly suggest that there were internal EOP

communications concerning the decision to seek Sherrod’s resignation and Secretary Vilsack’s

public statement vehemently criticizing her. For example, USDA Director of Communications

remarked to a White House spokesman regarding the White House’s involvement: “I guess

some folks over there are circling wagons.”41 Once Sherrod was asked to resign, a White House

communications director commented to the USDA regarding Secretary Vilsack’s public

statement: “We’re good with this version on this end. Counsel has cleared the language.”42

C. O’Connor’s proposal for the production of USDA documents is reasonable and not

burdensome.

To make the search term list reasonably effective at identifying relevant documents,

O’Connor respectfully requests that the Court require USDA and the EOP to supplement DOJ’s

proposed list with the search terms identified in the protocol attached as Exhibit 1. Each of the

40 Ex. 5, FP 045, 046. See also Ex. 5, FP 007, 022, 024, 025, 026, 027, 032, 034, 035, 038, 042,044, 047, 052-053.41 Ex. 5, FP 011-012.42 Ex. 5, FP 023. In addition, White House “officials” reportedly have acknowledged in background interviews that “the White House was more involved in the immediate response tothe video of [Ms.] Sherrod’s remarks than officials initially let on.” See Mary Clare Jalonick,Sherrod firing: emails reveal White House role, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (March 8, 2012),available at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0308/Sherrod-firing-emails-reveal-White-House-role.




13

search terms in this protocol comes from USDA documents released pursuant to FOIA requests.

As such, the Government cannot contend that these terms are not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of relevant evidence. The size and scope of the search term list (and the number of

individuals whose e-mails need to be searched) is necessary and reflective of the extensive

communications within USDA and the White House about Sherrod, her speech, her resignation

and the aftermath of her resignation. Since they are proven to identify documents the relevance

of which even USDA has acknowledged, it cannot be disputed that the search terms in Exhibit 1

are appropriate to identify additional relevant documents.

O’Connor’s proposal in Exhibit 1 for the search and production of USDA documents is

not burdensome. It essentially limits the search of e-mails to one keyword – Sherrod – except for

a key 16-day period in 2010, where it requires a search using multiple terms. To the extent that

these searches return an unwieldy number of documents, counsel for O’Connor has informed the

Government that the proposal may be re-evaluated.

D. O’Connor’s proposal for the production of EOP documents is reasonable and not

burdensome.

The Government asserts, on the one hand, that the EOP played no part in the decision to

ask Sherrod to resign,43 but on the other, that it purportedly has a multitude of documents relating

to its involvement that would present burdens of constitutional proportions. The Government

cites Cheney v. U.S. District Court , 542 U.S. 367 (2004), where it sought mandamus, but there

are significant dissimilarities between the discovery in Cheney and the EOP subpoena.

In Cheney, Vice President Cheney was a party and personally the subject of exceedingly

43 The Government contends that Secretary Vilsack’s statement to the press on July 21, 2010 that“[t]here was no pressure from the White House” to ask Plaintiff to resign [Dkt. 89-4 at 1-2]forecloses discovery on the issue. Secretary Vilsack, however, is neither the finder of fact northe arbiter of relevance in this litigation. As demonstrated herein, supra at 4, 11-12, there ismore than sufficient foundation to conclude that the EOP was directly involved with Sherrod’stermination.




14

broad discovery requests, including interrogatories and sweeping document requests. The

Supreme Court made clear that “[w]ere the Vice President not a party in the case, the argument

that the Court of Appeals should have entertained an action in mandamus, notwithstanding the

District Court’s denial of the motion for certification, might present different considerations.

Here, however, the Vice President and his co-members on the NEPDG are the subjects of the

discovery orders,” which raised the prospect of “distract[ing]” the Executive Branch “from the

energetic performance of its constitutional duties.” 542 U.S. at 381-82.

By contrast, mindful of the President’s important constitutional duties, O’Connor simply

requests the attention of IT staff, not senior EOP employees or officials, let alone the Vice

President (as in Cheney) or the President himself. The protocol attached hereto as Exhibit 1

simply requires a search of archived e-mail of ten EOP employees (whose involvement is

undisputed) using a single computer search term over a 16-day period and no interrogatories.

The narrow scope of O’Connor’s requests stands in stark contrast to the exceedingly broad

requests in Cheney, which “asked for everything under the sky,” id. at 387, replete with “detailed

and far-ranging interrogatories and sweeping requests for production of documents.” Id. at 396.

E. After sitting on its hands for more than three months, the Government cannot now

complain that a timely production would be too burdensome or disruptive.

The parties’ subpoenas were served more than three months ago, in October and

November of 2013. Even under its own conservative estimates, if the Government had begun

collecting documents in the weeks following its receipt of those subpoenas, it would be done by

now. By choosing not to take prudent steps to begin collecting documents in response to the

subpoenas – even those covered by its own insubstantial proposal – the Government cannot now

complain that a timely production would be too burdensome or disruptive. Whatever burden or

disruption may exist is of the Government’s own making.




15

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Larry O’Connor respectfully requests that the Court

compel production of the documents in response to his subpoenas to the USDA and EOP and

require the Government to implement the search protocol and document collection as set forth in

Exhibit 1.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark I. BailenBruce W. Sanford (356568)Bruce D. Brown (457317)Mark I. Bailen (459623)BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20036Tel: 202-861-1715Fax: 202-861-1783 [email protected] [email protected]@bakerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Larry O’Connor






SHIRLEY SHERROD,

Plaintiff,

))

)))

v.



Defendants.

)

))

)

))

)

Case No. 1:11-cv-00477 (RJL)

LIST OF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT LARRY O’CONNOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Exhibit 1 Defendant Larry O’Connor’s Proposed Keyword Search Protocol

Exhibit 2 Defendant Larry O’Connor’s Subpoena to the United States Department of

Agriculture

Exhibit 3 Defendant Larry O’Connor’s Subpoena to the Executive Office of the President

of the United States

Exhibit 4 Big Government, NAACP Bigotry in their ranks, YOUTUBE (July 19, 2010),

available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY

[CD to be filed separately with the Court.]

Exhibit 5 Selection of E-mails Released by USDA Pursuant to FOIA (FP 001-056)

Exhibit 6 Transcript, USDA Press Conference (Aug. 24, 2010), also available at

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2

010/08/0421.xml

Exhibit 7 Transcript, NAACP Video of Ms. Sherrod’s March 27, 2010 Speech Available at

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/

Exhibit 8 E-mail from David Glass to Mark Bailen, et al., Sherrod: Proposed Electronic

Searches (Dec. 19, 2013, 10:45 ET)




EXHIBIT 1

PROTOCOL FOR SEARCH AND PRODUCTION OF E-MAIL RECORDS

OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1. Shirley Sherrod E-mails: For the dates July 25, 2009 through July 19, 2010, the USDA shallsearch and produce Shirley Sherrod’s e-mails (including inbox, outbox, drafts, and

attachments).

2. Headquarters (“HQ”) E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates January 1, 2009 through July

14, 2010, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, and

attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit A to this Protocol for all documentscontaining the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and

“Senator Brown”).1

3. Rural Development (“RD”) E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates July 1, 2009 through July

14, 2010, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, andattachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit B to this Protocol for all documents

containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and“Senator Brown”).

2

4. HQ and RD E-mails (Search Term List): For the dates July 15, 2010 through July 30, 2010,the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, and attachments) of

the individuals listed in Exhibits A and B to this Protocol for all documents containing the

words or phrases listed in Exhibit C to this Protocol.

5. HQ and RD E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates July 31, 2010 through December 31,2012, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, drafts, and

attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibits A and B to this Protocol for all documents

containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and

“Senator Brown”).

1 Counsel for Mr. O’Connor understands, based on representations from counsel for the

Department of Justice, that the emails of Rural Development employees are organized separatefrom the e-mail for USDA headquarters staff. As a result, Exhibit A lists headquarters

employees and Exhibit B lists Rural Development employees.

2 Mr. O’Connor is not requesting e-mails for Rural Development employees prior to July 1, 2009

because counsel for Mr. O’Connor understands, based on representations from DOJ counsel, that

those e-mails are on inaccessible magnetic storage tapes.




2

PROTOCOL FOR SEARCHING E-MAIL RECORDS

OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

1. For the dates July 15, 2010 through July 30, 2010, the EOP shall search and produce the e-

mail (including inbox, outbox, and attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit D to this

Protocol for all documents containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “SherrodBrown,” “Sen. Brown,” and “Senator Brown”).




3

Exhibit A

USDA Headquarters Employees

Secretary

Tom VilsackKaren Ross

Carole Jett

Sally ClutheMalcolm Eve

Doug O’Brien

Monica WyantDavid Lazarus

Legislative Affairs

Krysta Harden

John BergeErin Hannigan

Lilia McFarlandTina May

Sarah Misailidis

Julie AllenTodd Williamson

Janice Williams

Chris Church

White House LiaisonKevin Washo

Deputy Secretary

Kathleen MerriganChad Maisel

Suzanne Palmieri

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Terry D’AddioRobin Heard

Alma C. Hobbs

Quinton RobinsonCarolyn C. Parker

Bobbi Jeanquart

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Joe Leonard

Mary McNeil

CommunicationsChris Mather

Justin DeJongCaleb Weaver

General CounselSteve Silverman

Frederick Pfaeffle

J. Michael KellyArlean Leland

Inga Bumbary-Langston

Farm Service Administration

Karis Gutter

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Pearlie S. Reed




4

Exhibit B

USDA Rural Development Employees

Rural Development

Dallas TonsagerCheryl Cook

Yeshimebet Abebe

Lisa ZainaWayne Maloney

Timothy McNeilly

Georgia Rural Development

Donnie D. Thomas

EJ Stapler

Deborah Callahan

Donna Graves




5

Exhibit C

Search Terms

approp*

“Big Government”Bishop

Breitbart

Brietbart [for misspellings]

CBC

Chambliss

CherlinCheryl

“Chris* Lu”

Clyburn

“Congressional Black Caucus”

Cook Dallas

“Denise Wilson”discriminat*

FSC

fire* (excepting w/ “forest”)firing

Fitz*

Fox“Freedom Fund”

“full copy”“GA-RD”

“GA/RD”

“GA RD”

“GA situation”“GA state director”

Gavin

“Georgia delegation”“Georgia RD”

“Georgia state director”

GibbsGreen

Hill

“James Cruey”“John Lewis”

Kingston

leave“Meet the Press”

NAACP

“New Communities”O’Connor

OAO

offer*“Office of Advocacy and Outreach”

Paige

Pearlie

Pigford

PPOPresident*

raceracis*

Rahm

“RD Director”Reed

resign*

“Rose Sanders”Saxby

Sherrod (excepting references to “SherrodBrown,” “Sen. Brown,” and “Senator

Brown”)

Shirley

Spooner*“Tea Party”

terminat*

transcrip*TJV

Towns

“Track B”transcri*

vet*

video“white farmer*”




6

Exhibit D

Executive Office of the President Employees

Rahm Emanuel

Robert GibbsJim Messina

Michael A. Blake

Christopher LuChris Reid

Tom Gavin

Reid CherlinValerie E. Green




EXHIBIT 4

Submitted On CD




Release No. 0421.10Contact:

Office of Communications 202-720-4623

The Honorable Tom Vilsack,Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture;and Shirley

Sherrod

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

SECRETARY VILSACK: Good morning, everyone. We have just about an hour-and-a-

half conversation with myself and Shirley. During the course of our conversation, we had Dr.Joe Leonard, the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, and Pearlie Reed, who is the AssistantSecretary for Administration. We had a far and good conversation.

Shirley was interested in the progress that we were trying to make in terms of settlinglawsuits that had been filed against the Department for civil rights violations, commonly

referred to as the "Pigford case," which Shirley unfortunately knows far too much about as a

plaintiff in that case early in the process, and I think it's fair to say that we both feel it'sappropriate and necessary for the Senate to take action as quickly as possible to make sure thatthe appropriations for those cases are made and that we get those cases settled as quickly as

possible, as well as the cases that have been filed against the Department by Native Americansand Hispanic and women farmers.

We also talked about the fact that in the previous eight years prior to this administration,there had been a number of claims that for whatever reason were not fully looked at and

investigated. We have reopened those cases, but we need congressional action, the Statute ofLimitations, to make sure that we do justice to those folks who were not treated fairly by the

Department.

Shirley was also very interested in the work that we're doing with an independent

consultant, the Jackson Lewis group, which has been hired by us sometime ago prior to thisincident, in which we asked the Jackson Lewis group to go out into a number of States to take areal hard look at our current procedures and policies in terms of how we deal with folks who

come into the Farm Service Agency Offices and the Rural Development Office to see if thereare ways in which we can make sure that we don't have these problems of discrimination in the

future. That work will be completed sometime this year, and that becomes relevant to nextsteps for the Department and Shirley.

I did my best, I think it's fair to say. I did my best to try to get her to come to USDA, tostay at USDA on a full-time basis. We talked about the Office of Advocacy and Outreach and

what her unique skills could bring to that office. We also talked about the opportunity thatwould be made available, if that was not something she was interested in doing, to return to

Georgia in her position as the State Director. For reasons that Shirley will get into, that doesn'tfit what she needs, what she wants, and what she deserves, and so we talked about the

possibility of utilizing Shirley's unique characteristics and experiences and her passion, herundying passion to see discrimination rooted from this country, so that when we get the reportfrom the consultant that tells us the steps that we need to take to improve our processes and

procedures at all levels, it's my intent and hope that we can ask for Shirley to assist us in somesort of consulting way for full implementation and proper implementation of those

recommendations. And I think there's no one in the country better suited to assist us in thateffort than Shirley.

Page 1 of 6

3/3/2014http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2010/08/0421.xml&printable...




Having been a victim of discrimination, having had a family who suffered a painful loss asa result of discrimination, having served as the Director of Rural Development and knowing

full well the programs and having worked in Georgia to begin changing things in that State, sothat there was fairness and full opportunity, there's no one that can help us better in that position than Shirley. So we are looking forward to later in the year reconnecting, once the

report is concluded, and we also talked very briefly about the steps we have taken internally

within USDA following our study of the circumstances and some of the steps that we're takingto improve decisionmaking as USDA.

With that, Shirley?

MS. SHERROD: Good morning. I want to say thank you to the Secretary for the updates

on Pigford and the discussion we've had this morning about what happened and the steps thatwill be taken in the future, so that hopefully on one else will have to deal with what I've had to

deal with over the last four or five weeks.

I enjoyed my work at USDA. As most of you know, I didn't work in government prior toabout a year ago now. It only lasted 11 months, but I did enjoy that work and would want tosee that work continue. I just don't think at this point, with all that has happened, I can do that

either in the new position that was offered or as State Director for Rural Development inGeorgia.

It doesn't mean that I'm not interested in that work because I certainly am. I was workingon many of those issues long before coming to the government and would hope to be able to

work on many of those issues in the future.

So I've had lots of support from around the country. I've had many, many, many thousands

of pieces of mail. Many of those, I would like to answer. I need a little time to be able to dealwith that, to sort of take a break from some of all that I've had to deal with over the last few

weeks, and I look forward to some type of relationship with the Department in the future.

We do need to work on the issues of discrimination and racism in this country, and I

certainly would like to play my role in trying to help deal with it, so thank you.

MODERATOR: Questions from members of the media?

QUESTION (Associated Press): Secretary Vilsack, Mary Clare Jalonick from AP. Could

you tell us a little bit about the investigation you all did into what happened? I know that wassupposed to be finished around --

SECRETARY VILSACK: Sure. You know, it starts with the responsibility that I have totake personally for making sure that instructions that are given to staff are clear and completeand comprehensive. It requires us to take a look at travel schedules to make sure that we have

sufficient staff at various offices.

At the time this incident occurred, I was on travel, the Chief of Staff was on travel, so weneed to do a better job of coordinating travel schedules.

We obviously have to take a look at the process that was used for political appointees interms of actions and steps. We need a much more collaborative process engaging the UnderSecretaries and senior staff members before decisions are finalized.

We obviously also have to make sure that everyone has contact information that's accurate

and complete, and we have to establish protocols for contacting folks who may be in a situation

where there may be the possibility of disciplinary action, to make sure that their rights are fully protected.

Page 2 of 6





Political appointees were treated a little differently than a career appointee, and weobviously need to make sure that there's a more parallel system for political appointees, so that

what Shirley went through doesn't happen again. That's the goal.

These recommendations will be and are in the process of being incorporated into our procedures now.

QUESTION (CNN): Secretary Vilsack, Brian Todd from CNN.

The afternoon that Ms. Sherrod came out and clarified what had happened, it became clearthat her remarks were taken out of context. You still stood by the removal of her, at least in theimmediate. Why did you do that, and what changed your mind since then? Was there pressure

from somewhere else outside the Department?

SECRETARY VILSACK: No, there wasn't pressure, but because I was not necessarily inthis office, I didn't avail myself of the full range of advice and counsel. I was not aware, forexample, that the Under Secretary of Rural Development was attempting to get a hold of me to

suggest that perhaps we needed to take another period of time to review.

Obviously, when the full transcript of what Shirley's remarks were, were made known tome, it was pretty obvious that this was a circumstance and situation where her comments were

taken totally and completely out of context, and that the main message, which is a message thatwas very supportive of what we're trying to do at USDA was not inconsistent, as I hadoriginally thought, but very consistent with what we were trying to do. What Shirley was trying

to point out was that there is and has been for sometime issues of discrimination and bias and prejudice in this country, that USDA because of the enormity of our Department has so many

opportunities to intersect with people, that there needed to be an effort to make sure that USDAwas an example, an exemplary administration, an exemplary Department when it comes to civil

rights. Obviously, with the claims that had been filed against us in the past, we have had workto do.

So all of that transported in a couple-of-day period and led me to believe that I had made amistake, which I acknowledged and certainly contacted Shirley and told her I was sorry for

what we had done and asked for her forgiveness, and she was gracious enough to give it to me.

QUESTION (ABC News): Dean Norland from ABC News.

Ms. Sherrod, is this a satisfactory conclusion to what you have gone through the past fiveor six weeks, and wouldn't it be more a sense of completion if you had stayed in this building

and worked on problems of discrimination rather than going off and taking a break and not being directly involved in the process?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Sounds like the hard sell I gave you in the office.

MS. SHERROD: (Laughs.) Yes, it is.

The Secretary did push really, really hard for me to stay and work from the inside in the

position. It is a new position.

I, you know, look at what happened now, and I know he's apologized and I accept that. I just -- and there are new processes in place, and I hope that it works. I don't want to be the oneto test it. (Laughs.)

So, you know, I think there is -- I think I can be helpful to him and the Department if I just

take a little break and look at how I can be more helpful in the future.

I guess that's enough to be said.

SECRETARY VILSACK: May I say this? And I think it's important to understand whyShirley has unique opportunities here.

Page 3 of 6





In her work in Georgia, she was beginning a process of going into counties and areas of herState where there was deep poverty, high unemployment, not much outreach from previous

efforts by USDA, and she was making strides to make sure that those counties that had beenignored in the process were recognized, appreciated, and helped. That's the kind of work that Isuspect -- but I don't know, but I suspect will come forward with the recommendations from

the review of the two-year review that's taking place of our programs.

At that point, we can, I think, tailor an opportunity, if you will, to meet those unique

characteristics, and Shirley can help us implement those recommendations with a focus whereshe's not worried about administrative issues having to deal with personnel or budgets or things

of that nature, the details, the day-to-day details of a senior position. She'll be able to focus on

what she was doing a good job of in Georgia, be able to spend the personal time and also to beable to balance that time.

As she pointed out, she and her husband have been struggling with this for 40 --

MS. SHERROD: Forty-five years.

SECRETARY VILSACK: -- 45 years, and she's got children and, more importantly, Ithink now grandchildren she wants to spend time with, and so it's perfectly understandable, but

I don't want anybody to think that she cannot be of significant help here. I believe she can.

That's why I offered her the opportunities that I did, but I think this might be a better fit for her,and I think she'll be able to devote the time and attention and passion that she wants.

QUESTION: Shirley, this question is for you. How much time are you looking to take off,

and any thought or vision of what you want your future collaboration to be?

MS. SHERROD: You know, as far as my role with the Department, that will be strictly upto the Secretary, and I think he's looking at getting that report in before we can discuss it, so I

have no idea how long that will take. I don't know the time table for that, but it doesn't meanthat I won't be speaking out. I've had many, many requests from around the country for people-- from people who want to hear from me. I'd like to hear from them because I'd like to know,

I'd like to hear about efforts that are being made in communities that are dealing with the issueof racism and discrimination, and I really like to highlight them because I know there are

people out there who care, who want to work on the issues, who are working on the issues, andI think we need more of that. I think we need to hear those stories as we move forward.

That's what this country needs. You know, we're a great country, and there are people whocare. We're hearing too much from those who would want to point out the negative right now,

and I really would like to concentrate on the positive.

QUESTION: What was the exact role, the exact position, and the duties there, and were

you tempted to take it?

MS. SHERROD: Yes, I was tempted to take it. I'm not sure of the total role, and theSecretary can speak more to that than I can at this point. I was tempted. (Laughs.)

SECRETARY VILSACK: The Office of Outreach and Advocacy was created by the

Congress to do work that needs to be done in USDA to make sure that people understand andappreciate what programs USDA offers and how to access them.

As I think Shirley's work in Georgia pointed out, there are an awful lot of people that have

no idea how broad the scope of this Department is and are often -- because of the poverty or thedifficulties of managing governments at the local level oftentimes are overwhelmed by theapplication process by the complexity of the Federal bureaucracy that they have to work

through.

So the idea of this office, working with our Civil Rights Office, was to do a better job ofintegrating into those communities and making sure that they understood what was available

Page 4 of 6





and making sure that they had access to the programs because there are probably counties thathave not accessed USDA programs that are precisely the reason why we created these

programs.

What Shirley would have done in that position is that she would have overseen, if you will,that effort to make sure that we are penetrating. In the position that I'm thinking of in terms of

the study that's going to come forward, I think she'll be able to also do that but maybe be ableto focus more of her time and dig deeper than she would if she had administrative

responsibilities, which is what she would have had as a senior executive.

QUESTION: Just to the question earlier, are you saying that you never spoke to anyone at

the White House right before Ms. Sherrod stepped down? And if you did speak to someone atthe White House, can you tell us who it was?

SECRETARY VILSACK: I didn't speak to anyone at the White House.

As I said earlier, this was my responsibility, and I had to take full responsibility for it, and I

continue to take full responsibility for it. I will take it for as long as I live.

This was -- you know, I pride myself on the work that I do, and I know that I disappointedthe President, I disappointed this administration, I disappointed the country, I disappointed

Shirley. I have to live with that, and I accept that responsibility. That's what happens when youhave this kind of position.

My only hope is and my belief is that despite this difficulty, despite the challenges and the problems that we've seen and that poor Shirley had to go through, maybe, just maybe this is an

opportunity for the country to have the kind of conversation that Shirley thinks we ought tohave, and maybe, just maybe this will put a spotlight not necessarily on this incident, but withall of this media attention, maybe there will be a spotlight on the efforts that USDA is making

in the area of civil rights, it is trying to solve and settle cases that have been outstanding -- forhow many years, Shirley? Twenty?

MS. SHERROD: Mm-hmm.

SECRETARY VILSACK: Twenty, almost 30 years.

MS. SHERROD: Yes.

SECRETARY VILSACK: It is trying to reopen cases that were, Joe, denied access andreview in previous years, is trying to engage in a cultural transformation, so that our workforce

is modernized and as diverse as the country is and is engaged in an effort to try to get the

programs of USDA to the people who are most in need, not necessarily the best connected people but the people who are most in need.

So, to me, if we're going to make anything out of this, apart from Shirley's circumstances,

that's what I have to do, and that's what I'm committed to doing. I am very serious about this. I

came into this office committed to trying to close the chapter of civil rights that has been adifficult chapter for USDA and a very sorted chapter. We want to create a new chapter, and thisunfortunate circumstance has at least given us the opportunity to have that conversation with

the nation, which, you know, if it's personal pain I have to endure for that, I'm happy to takethat if we get that message out.

QUESTION: I have a question for Shirley. A few weeks ago, you said you were going tosue Blogger Andrew Breitbart. What's the status of that lawsuit, and do you still think that

you're going to sue him?

MS. SHERROD: I really don't want to discuss that right now. I do think a suit will be

forthcoming, but I don't want to discuss it at this time.

MODERATOR: I think that wraps it up.

Page 5 of 6





#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of

discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272(voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

#

Page 6 of 6





Transcription of Video FINAL - March 27, 2010Sherrod v. Breitbart, et al. NAACP Sherrod Speech

JANE ROSE REPORTING [email protected] BY 1-800-825-3341

Page 1

SHERROD v. BREI TBART, ET AL.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FI NAL COPY

TRANSCRI PTI ON OF VI DEO POSTED AT

ht t p: / / www. naacp. or g/ news/ ent r y/ vi deo_sher r od/

J ANE ROSE REPORTI NG

Ther esa Sul l i van, Tr anscr i pt i oni st

J ANE ROSE REPORTI NG 1- 800- 825- 3341






Page 2

1 Good eveni ng.

2 Ol i vi a, I want t o t hank you f or t hose ki nd

3 words. You know, i t ' s been a pl easure wor ki ng wi t h

4 her over t he l ast t en year s. I ' ve mi ssed t he wor k.

5 I had t o move on t o some ot her work and I ' l l t al k

6 t o you more about t hat .

7 To t he Pr esi dent of t he N. A. A. C. P. , her e and

8 t he Boar d of Di r ect ors, and members and al l ot hers

9 her e, i t i s i ndeed a pl easur e f or me t o be wi t h you

10 t hi s eveni ng. And what I want t o say t o you, I am

11 very proud t o be wor ki ng wi t h the Obama

12 Admi ni st r at i on t o hel p r ur al Amer i ca gr ow agai n. I

13 want t o do al l I can t o hel p r ur al communi t i es,

14 such as your s, t o be a pl ace where we can have a

15 qual i t y l i f e and a comf or t abl e l i f e f or our

16 f ami l i es and our f r i ends.

17 But bef or e I gi ve you - - even bef or e I - - I go

18 i nt o what I have her e, I want t o - - I want t o

19 second somet hi ng t hat Ol i vi a sai d. You know, I

20 gr ew up on a f arm and I di dn' t want t o have

21 anyt hi ng t o do wi t h agr i cul t ur e, but she was r i ght .

22 Ther e ar e j obs at USDA. And many t i mes t here ar e

23 no peopl e of col or t o f i l l t hose j obs because we

24 shy away f r omagr i cul t ur e. We hear t he word

25 "agr i cul t ur e" and t hi nk onl y of wor ki ng i n t he






Page 3

1 f i el ds.

2 You' ve hear d of a l ot of l ayof f s. Have you

3 hear d of anybody i n t he Federal Government l osi ng

4 t hei r j ob? That ' s al l I need t o say. Okay? And I

5 - - I mi ght say a l i t t l e bi t mor e t o t he young

6 peopl e. I t ' s good t o have you- al l her e.

7 I want t o shar e somethi ng wi t h you t hi s

8 eveni ng, somethi ng t hat ' s al ways heavy on my hear t

9 each day, but especi al l y at t hi s t i me of t he year .

10 I t was 45 year s ago t oday t hat my f at her ' s f uner al

11 was hel d.

12 I was a young gi r l at t he age of 17 when my

13 f at her was murder ed by a whi t e man i n Baker Count y.

14 I n Baker Count y t he mur der of bl ack peopl e occurr ed

15 per i odi cal l y and i n ever y case t he whi t e men who

16 mur dered t hem were never puni shed. I t was no

17 di f f er ent i n my f at her ' s case. Ther e wer e t hr ee

18 wi t nesses t o hi s mur der , but t he gr and j ur y ref used

19 t o i ndi ct t he whi t e man who murder ed hi m.

20 I shoul d t el l you a l i t t l e about Baker Count y.

21 I n case you don' t know wher e i t i s, i t ' s l ocat ed

22 l ess t han 20 mi l es sout hwest of Al bany. Now, t here

23 wer e t wo sher i f f s f r om Baker Count y that - - whose

24 names you probabl y never heard, but I know i n t he

25 case of one, t he t hi ng he di d many, many years ago






Page 4

1 st i l l af f ect us t oday. And t hat Sher i f f was Cl aude

2 Screws. Cl aude Screws l ynched a bl ack man and t hi s

3 was at t he begi nni ng of t he 40s. And t he st r ange

4 t hi ng back t hen was an al l whi t e f eder al j ur y

5 convi ct ed hi m not of mur der , but of depr i vi ng Bobby

6 Hal l , and I shoul d say Bobby Hal l was a rel at i ve,

7 depr i vi ng hi m of hi s ci vi l r i ght s .

8 Now, Bobby Hal l - - I ' m sor r y, Cl aude Scr ews

9 appeal ed hi s convi ct i on al l t he way t o t he U. S.

10 Supreme Cour t wher e the convi ct i on was over t urned

11 and t he J ust i ce who wr ot e the opi ni on sai d t hat t he

12 appr opr i ate charge was mur der , but y' al l know t hat

13 a whi t e man woul dn' t be convi ct ed of mur der i ng a

14 bl ack man dur i ng t hose days. So, t hey char ged hi m

15 wi t h depr i vi ng Bobby Hal l of hi s ci vi l r i ght s.

16 So, wi t h t he opi ni on - - and when t he J ust i ce

17 wrot e t hi s opi ni on i n - - i n - - i n - - i n j ust i f yi ng

18 over t ur ni ng t he convi ct i on, he sai d, you had t o pr ove

19 t hat as t he sher i f f was mur der i ng Bobby Hal l , he was

20 t hi nki ng of t he depr i vi ng hi m of hi s ci vi l r i ght s.

21 That ' s where t he whol e i ssue of provi ng i nt ent came

22 f r om and you hear d i t a l ot . I t was used a l ot

23 dur i ng the Ci vi l Ri ght s Movement , but you al so

24 hear d i t a l ot when Rodney Ki ng was beat en out i n

25 Cal i f or ni a. Y' al l mi ght remember t hat . They kept






Page 5

1 sayi ng t hey had t o pr ove i nt ent . And t hat came

2 f r om Scr ews ver sus t he U. S. Government .

3 I ' m t ol d t hat t hat case i s st udi ed by ever y

4 l aw st udent . And usual l y when we have peopl e

5 comi ng i nt o Sout hwest Geor gi a and want i ng t o t ake

6 some tour s of - - of t hi ngs where some event s

7 happened dur i ng t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Movement , I

8 usual l y t ake t hem t o t he Cour t house i n Newt on to

9 show where Bobby Hal l ' s body was di spl ayed.

10 Dur i ng my year s of gr owi ng up t he sher i f f was

11 L. War r en J ohnson. He want ed t o be cal l ed "The

12 Gat or , " and t hat ' s how peopl e r ef er r ed t o hi m,

13 because he had a hol l er t hat woul d make you want t o

14 t r embl e. He al so ki l l ed a l ot of bl ack peopl e and

15 Gat or J ohnson was "The Law" i n Baker Count y. And

16 when I say t hat , I mean t hat . No one, bl ack or

17 whi t e, coul d r i de t hr ough the Count y wi t h an out -

18 of - count y t ag. That means you coul d have a t ag

19 f r om anywher e el se i n Geor gi a, but you coul dn' t

20 r i de t hr ough Baker Count y wi t hout bei ng st opped.

21 And t he At l ant a Const i t ut i on r epor t ed, at one

22 poi nt , t hat hi s t ake on t he r oad was at l east

23 $150, 000 a year and t hat was dur i ng the 60s.

24 My f at her was a f armer . And growi ng up on t he

25 f ar m my dr eam was t o get as f ar away f r om t he f ar m






Page 6

1 and Baker Count y as I coul d get . And pi cki ng

2 cot t on, pi cki ng cucumber s, shaki ng peanut s f or a

3 l i t t l e whi l e, bef or e they, you know, end up doi ng

4 - - ol der f ol k know what I ' m t al ki ng about , wher e

5 you had t o shake t hemand t ake t hemover t o the

6 pol e and - - and - - and - - and put t hem ar ound t hat ,

7 you know, doi ng al l t hat wor k on t he f ar m i t ' l l

8 make you get a - - an educat i on more t han anyt hi ng el se.

9 But I di dn' t want t o j ust get an educat i on. I

10 want ed t o l eave t he f arm and Baker Count y. I t was

11 - - l i f e was - - t he ol der f ol k know what I ' m t al ki ng

12 about , t he - - t he - - t he - - t he - - t he segr egat i on and

13 t he di scri mi nat i on, and t he - - and t he r aci st act s t hat

14 we had t o endur e dur i ng t hose year s made you j ust

15 want t o l eave, and you know, we use t o have peopl e

16 who l eave and go nor t h. Y' al l know how t hey come

17 back t al ki ng and t hey come back l ooki ng. I l earned

18 l at er t hat some of t hose car s t hey dr ove home were

19 r ent ed.

20 But , i t made you j ust want t o go nor t h because

21 you t hought t hey were f r ee up t her e and you t hought

22 everybody was f r ee i n t he nor t h. So, my goal was

23 not t o even go t o col l ege i n the sout h, because I

24 - - you know, I was al ways t ol d you f i nd your

25 husband at col l ege. So, I di dn' t want t o f i nd one






Page 7

1 l i vi ng i n t he sout h. I want ed t o go t o col l ege i n

2 t he Nor t h so I coul d get me a husband f r om t he

3 nor t h and never have t o come back down her e and

4 l i ve agai n.

5 But , you know, you can never say what you' l l

6 never do. And i t was dur i ng March, my seni or year

7 i n hi gh school . I mean, my f at her was j ust

8 ever yt hi ng t o us. I have f our si st er s. I ' m t he

9 ol dest . My mot her - - t her e ar e si x of us, but my

10 f ather want ed a son so bad. We were al l gi r l s. We

11 al l had boys ni ckname. I was "Bi l l . " Now, he

12 l oved hi s gi r l s, but he want ed a son so bad t hat

13 when my si st er was about - - my youngest si st er was

14 ei ght , he convi nced my mot her t o t r y one more t i me

15 f or t hi s boy.

16 So, t o my sur pr i se, dur i ng my seni or year , I

17 t hought my mother was j ust si ck. I di dn' t know

18 what was wr ong wi t h her . You know, I was r eal l y

19 worr i ed. And one day at school my best f r i end sai d,

20 um, - - she sai d, "How' s your momma doi ng?" I sai d,

21 "She j ust doesn' t seem t o be get t i ng any bet t er . "

22 She sai d, "Gi r l , your daddy was up at t he st or e

23 yest er day gi vi ng out ci gar s. Your momma gonna have

24 a baby. "

25 He t ol d everyone t hat t hat baby was t he son.






Page 8

1 And he was, i n f act , havi ng a new home bui l t . He

2 was t he f i r st per son t o get a - - a l oan f r om

3 Far mer ' s Home t o bui l d a house and he want ed a

4 br i ck house so bad, but t hey t ol d hi m, bl ack man

5 coul d not bor r ow t he money t o bui l d a br i ck house.

6 They had t o choose bl ocks , you know. So, i n t hi s

7 new house t hat was bei ng bui l t , you know, wi t h f i ve

8 daught ers, t here was t hi s one r oom t hat was the

9 boy' s r oom, hi s son' s room. He t ol d ever ybody i t

10 was a boy. And, i n f act , i t was pai nt ed bl ue. And

11 he came - - he and my mot her came and pi cked me up

12 f r om school one day ear l y t o go to Al bany wi t h t hem

13 t o pi ck t he f ur ni t ur e f or t hi s boy' s r oom. He

14 di dn' t l i ve t o see hi m. My br other was born t wo

15 mont hs af t er he di ed, i n J une of ' 65.

16 We st ar t ed t he Movement , but bef ore I get

17 t her e I need t o t el l you somet hi ng I have - - and I

18 want t o say t hi s t o t he young peopl e. You know, I

19 t ol d you how I - - I moved f orward and I dr eamt so

20 much about movi ng nor t h and get t i ng away f r om t he

21 sout h - - t he f ar m, especi al l y, and t he sout h. And,

22 um, I knew t hat af t er - - on t he ni ght of my f at her ' s

23 deat h I f el t I had t o do somet hi ng. I had t o do

24 somet hi ng i n answer t o what had happened.

25 My f at her wasn' t t he f i r st bl ack per son t o be






Page 9

1 ki l l ed. He was a l eader i n t he communi t y. He

2 wasn' t t he f i r st one t o be ki l l ed by - - by whi t e

3 men i n t he Count y, but I coul dn' t j ust l et hi s

4 deat h go wi t hout doi ng somet hi ng i n answer t o what

5 happened. I made t he commi t ment on t he ni ght of my

6 f at her ' s deat h, at t he age of 17 t hat I woul d not

7 l eave t he sout h; t hat I woul d st ay i n t he Sout h and

8 devot e my l i f e t o wor ki ng f or change. And I ' ve

9 been t r ue t o that commi t ment al l of t hese 45 years.

10 You know, when you l ook at some of t he t hi ngs

11 t hat I ' ve done t hr ough the year s, and when you l ook

12 at some of t he t hi ngs t hat happened t o us - - I went

13 - - I went t o school - - my f i r st t wo year s at For t

14 Val l ey - - I know t her e' s some Al bany St at e

15 gr aduat es i n her e t oo. I di d my f i r st t wo year s

16 at For t Val l ey, but so much was happeni ng back at

17 home and t hen I met t hi s man her e, I ' l l t el l you a

18 l i t t l e bi t about hi m, t hat I t r ansf er r ed back t o

19 Al bany St at e and di d t he l ast year .

20 But t wo weeks af t er I went t o school at For t

21 Val l ey, t hey cal l ed and t ol d me t hat a bunch of

22 whi t e men had gat her ed out si de of our home and

23 bur ned t he cr oss one ni ght . Now, i n t he house was

24 my mot her , my f our si st er s, and my br ot her , who was

25 born J une 6 and t hi s was Sept ember . That was al l






Page 10

1 i n t he house t hat ni ght . Wel l , my mother and one

2 of my si st ers went out on t he por ch. My mot her had

3 a gun. Another si st er - - you know some of t he

4 st uf f , i t ' s l i ke movi es, some of t he st uf f t hat

5 happened t hr ough t he years. I won' t go i nt o

6 ever yt hi ng. I ' l l j ust tel l you about t hi s. Um, one of

7 my si st er s got on t he phone because we wer e havi ng

8 - - we organi zed t he Movement st art i ng J une of ' 65,

9 shor t l y - - not l ong af t er my f at her ' s deat h; t hat ' s

10 how I met my husband.

11 He wasn' t f r om t he Nor t h. See, I was gonna marr y

12 someone f r omt he nort h. He' s f r omup sout h t hough

13 i n Vi r gi ni a. But anyway t hey - - t hey - - one of my

14 si st ers got on t he phone and cal l ed other bl ack men

15 i n t he Count y. And i t wasn' t l ong bef ore t hey had

16 sur r ounded t hese whi t e men. And t hey had t o keep

17 one young man f r om act ual l y usi ng hi s gun on one of

18 t hem. You probabl y woul d have r ead about i t , um, had

19 t hat happened t hat ni ght . But t hey act ual l y al l ow

20 t hose men t o l eave. They - - t hey backed away and

21 al l owed t hem t o get out of t her e.

22 But , um, I won' t go i nt o some of t he other st uf f

23 t hat happened t hat ni ght , but do know t hat my

24 mot her and my si st er were out on t he por ch wi t h a

25 gun, and my mot her sai d, " I see you and I know who






Page 11

1 you are. " She r ecogni zed some of t hem. Uh, she' l l

2 t el l you t hat she became the f i r st bl ack el ect ed

3 of f i ci al i n Baker Count y j ust 11 year s l at er , and

4 she i s st i l l ser vi ng you- al l . She' s chai r of t he

5 Boar d of , uh, Educat i on and she' s been ser vi ng al most

6 34 years.

7 Um, I di dn' t know how I woul d go about car r yi ng

8 out t he commi t ment I made t hat ni ght , but when t he

9 St udent Nonvi ol ent Coor di nat i ng Commi t t ee, Char l es

10 Sher r od, Leader , he was t he one who came t o Al bany

11 and st ar t ed t he Movement t her e i n 1961. And he

12 st ayed, you know. A l ot of t hem went i nt o communi t i es

13 and t hey - - t hey - - t hey worked dur i ng t he

14 ear l y part of t he Movement and t hey l ef t . But he

15 cont i nued t o st ay i n Sout hwest Geor gi a, and we' ve

16 done a l ot of st uf f t hr ough t he year s i f , um - - some of

17 t he t hi ngs t hat have happened t o us, you' d pr obabl y

18 be on t he edge of your seat i f I wer e t o t el l you

19 about some of t hem. We' ve been i n some very, very

20 danger ous si t uat i ons t hr ough t he years, but we

21 cont i nue to work.

22 And, you know God i s so good because peopl e

23 l i ke me don' t get appoi nt ed t o posi t i ons l i ke St at e

24 Di r ect or f or Rur al Devel opment . They j ust don' t

25 get t hese ki nds of posi t i ons, because I ' ve been out






Page 12

1 t her e at t he gr assr oot s l evel and I ' ve pai d some dues.

2 Okay. But when I - - when I - - when I made t he

3 commi t ment years ago I di dn' t know how - - I di dn' t

4 - - I j ust - - I di dn' t - - I prayed about i t t hat

5 ni ght and as our house f i l l ed wi t h peopl e, I was

6 back i n one of t he bedrooms pr ayi ng and aski ng God

7 t o show me what I coul d do. I di dn' t have t he - -

8 t he - - t he pat h wasn' t l ai d out t hat ni ght . I j ust made

9 t he deci si on t hat I woul d st ay and wor k. And - -

10 and over t he year s t hi ngs j ust happened. And young

11 peopl e, I j ust want you t o know t hat when you' r e

12 t r ue t o what God want s you t o do, t he path j ust

13 opens up and thi ngs j ust come t o you, you know.

14 God i s good, I can t el l you t hat .

15 When I made t hat commi t ment , I was maki ng t hat

16 commi t ment t o bl ack peopl e and t o bl ack peopl e

17 onl y. But , you know, God wi l l - - wi l l - - wi l l show you

18 t hi ngs and he' l l put t hi ngs i n your pat h so t hat - -

19 t hat you r eal i ze t hat t he st r uggl e i s r eal l y about

20 poor peopl e, you know. The f i r st t i me I was f aced

21 wi t h havi ng t o hel p a whi t e f ar mer save hi s f arm,

22 he - - he t ook a l ong t i me tal ki ng, but he was

23 t r yi ng t o show me he was super i or t o me. I know

24 what he was doi ng. But he had come to me f or hel p.

25 What he di dn' t know, whi l e he was t aki ng al l t hat






Page 13

1 t i me t r yi ng t o show me he was super i or t o me, was I

2 was t r yi ng to deci de j ust how much hel p I was goi ng

3 t o gi ve hi m.

4 I was st r uggl i ng wi t h t he f act t hat so many

5 bl ack peopl e have l ost t hei r f ar ml and, and her e I

6 was f aced wi t h havi ng to hel p a whi t e person save

7 t hei r l and. So, I di dn' t gi ve hi m t he f ul l f orce

8 of what I coul d do. I di d enough so t hat when he

9 - - I - - I assumed t he Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e had

10 sent hi m t o me, ei t her t hat or t he - - or t he

11 Geor gi a Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e. And, um, he needed

12 t o go back and r epor t t hat I di d t r y t o hel p hi m.

13 So I t ook hi m t o a whi t e l awyer t hat we had - - t hat

14 had - - t hat had at t ended some of t he t r ai ni ng t hat

15 we had provi ded, because Chapt er 12 bankrupt cy had

16 j ust been enact ed f or t he f ami l y f ar mer . So, I

17 f i gur ed i f I t ake hi m t o one of t hem t hat hi s own

18 ki nd woul d t ake car e of hi m.

19 That ' s when i t was r eveal ed t o me t hat , y' al l ,

20 i t ' s about poor ver sus t hose who have, and not so

21 much about whi t e - - i t i s about whi t e and bl ack,

22 but i t ' s not - - you know, i t opened my eyes,

23 because I t ook hi m t o one of hi s own and, uh, I put hi m

24 i n hi s hand, and f el t okay, I ' ve done my j ob. But ,

25 dur i ng that t i me we woul d have these i nj unct i ons






Page 14

1 agai nst t he Depar t ment of Agr i cul t ur e and, um - - so,

2 t hey coul dn' t f or ecl ose on hi m. And I want you t o

3 know t hat t he County super vi sor had done somethi ng

4 t o hi m t hat I have not seen yet t hat t hey' ve done

5 t o any ot her f ar mer, bl ack or whi t e. And what t hey

6 di d t o hi m caused hi m t o not be abl e t o f i l e

7 Chapt er 12 bankr uptcy.

8 So, ever yt hi ng was goi ng al ong f i ne. I ' m

9 t hi nki ng he' s bei ng t aken car e of by the whi t e

10 l awyer . And t hen t hey l i f t ed t he i nj unct i on

11 agai nst USDA i n May of ' 87 f or t wo weeks and he was

12 one of 13 f armers i n Geor gi a who r ecei ved a

13 f or ecl osur e not i ce. He cal l ed me. I sai d, "Wel l ,

14 go on and make an appoi ntment at t he l awyer . Let

15 me know when i t i s and I ' l l meet you t her e. "

16 So, we met at t he l awyer ' s of f i ce on t he - - on t he

17 dat e t hey had gi ven hi m. And t hi s l awyer sat t her e

18 - - he had been payi ng t hi s l awyer , y' al l , t hat ' s

19 what got me. He had been payi ng t he l awyer s i nce

20 November , and t hi s was May. And t he l awyer sat

21 t her e and l ooked at hi m and sai d, "Wel l , y' al l ar e

22 get t i ng ol d. Why don' t you j ust l et t he f ar m go?"

23 I coul d not bel i eve he sai d t hat , so I sai d t o t he

24 l awyer , I t ol d hi m, "I can' t bel i eve you sai d

25 t hat . " I sai d, "I t ' s obvi ous to me i f he cannot






Page 15

1 f i l e" - - "f i l e a Chapt er 12 bankr upt cy t o" - - "t o

2 st op t hi s f or ecl osur e, you have t o f i l e an 11. "

3 And t he l awyer sai d t o me, " I ' l l do what ever you

4 say" - - "what ever you t hi nk. " That ' s t he way he

5 put i t . But he' s payi ng hi m. He wasn' t payi ng me

6 any money, you know. So he sai d - - t he l awyer sai d

7 - - he woul d wor k on i t .

8 And t hen, about seven days bef ore t hat l and

9 woul d have been sol d at t he cour t house st eps, t he

10 f armer cal l ed me and sai d the l awyer wasn' t doi ng

11 anyt hi ng. And t hat ' s when I spent t i me t here i n my

12 of f i ce cal l i ng ever ybody I coul d t hi nk of t o t r y t o

13 see - - hel p me f i nd a l awyer who woul d handl e t hi s.

14 And f i nal l y, I r emember ed t hat I had gone t o see

15 one j ust 40 mi l es away i n Amer i cus wi t h a bl ack

16 f ar mer . So I [ Audi o and vi sual i nt er r upt ed

17 f or unknown dur at i on] .

18 Wel l , worki ng wi t h hi m made me see t hat

19 i t ' s r eal l y about t hose who have ver sus t hose who

20 don' t , you know, and t hey coul d be bl ack, t hey

21 coul d be whi t e, t hey coul d be Hi spani c. And i t

22 made me real i ze t hen t hat I needed t o work t o hel p

23 poor peopl e, t hose who don' t have access t he way

24 ot her s have.

25 I want t o j ust shar e somethi ng wi t h you and - -






Page 16

1 and - - and, um - - I t hi nk i t hel ps t o and - - i t - -

2 you know, when I l ear ned t hi s, I ' m l i ke, "Oh, my

3 goodness. " You know, back i n t he l ate 17t h and

4 18t h Cent ur y, um, bl ack - - t her e wer e bl ack

5 i ndent ur ed servant s and whi t e i ndent ur ed servant s,

6 and t hey al l woul d work f or t he seven years and - -

7 and get t hei r f r eedom. And t hey di dn' t see any

8 di f f er ence i n each ot her . No - - nobody wor r i ed

9 about ski n col or . They mar r i ed each ot her , you

10 know. These were poor whi t es and poor bl acks i n

11 t he same boat , t hey were sl aves, but t hey were

12 bot h sl aves and both had t he oppor t uni t y t o work

13 out on sl aver y.

14 But t hen t hey st ar t ed l ooki ng at t he

15 i nj ust i ces t hat t hey f aced and st ar t ed t hen t r yi ng

16 - - you know - - t he peopl e wi t h money, you know,

17 t hey st ar t ed t he - - t he - - t he - - t he - - t he poor

18 whi t es and poor bl acks who were - - t hey - - you

19 know, t hey mar r i ed each ot her . They l i ved

20 t oget her . They wer e j ust l i ke we woul d be.

21 And they st ar t ed l ooki ng at what was happeni ng

22 t o t hem and deci ded we need t o do somet hi ng about

23 i t - - you know, about t hi s. Wel l , t he peopl e

24 wi t h money, t he el i t e, deci ded, "Hey, we need t o

25 do somethi ng here t o di vi de t hem. "






Page 17

1 So t hat ' s when t hey made bl ack peopl e ser vant s

2 f or l i f e. That ' s when t hey put l aws i n pl ace

3 f or bi ddi ng t hem t o mar r y each ot her . That ' s when

4 t hey created t he r aci sm t hat we know of t oday.

5 They di d i t t o keep us di vi ded. And t hey - - i t

6 st ar t ed wor ki ng so wel l , t hey sai d, "Gosh, l ooks

7 l i ke we' ve come up on somethi ng here that can l ast

8 generat i ons. " And here we are over 400 years

9 l at er , and i t ' s st i l l wor ki ng. What we have t o do

10 i s get t hat out of our heads. Ther e i s no

11 di f f er ence bet ween us. The onl y di f f er ence i s t hat

12 t he f ol ks wi t h money want t o st ay i n power and,

13 whet her i t ' s heal t h car e or what ever i t i s, t hey' l l

14 do what t hey need t o do t o keep t hat power , you

15 know. I t ' s al ways about money, y' al l .

16 You know, I haven' t seen such mean- spi r i t ed

17 peopl e as I ' ve seen l at el y over t hi s i ssue of

18 heal t h car e. Some of t he r aci sm we t hought was

19 bur i ed, di dn' t i t sur f ace? Now, we endur ed ei ght

20 year s of t he Bushes and we di dn' t do t he st uf f

21 t hese Republ i cans ar e doi ng because you have a

22 bl ack Pr esi dent . I want ed t o gi ve you t hat l i t t l e

23 hi st or y, especi al l y t he young peopl e. I want you

24 t o know t hey cr eat ed i t , you know, not j ust f or us.

25 But we got t he br unt of i t because t hey needed t o






Page 18

1 el evat e whi t es j ust a l i t t l e hi gher t han us t o

2 make t hem t hi nk they were so much bet t er , and then

3 we - - t hey woul d never work wi t h us, you know, t o

4 t r y to change t he si t uat i on t hat t hey wer e al l i n.

5 But wher e amI goi ng wi t h t hi s? You know, I

6 coul dn' t say - - 45 year s ago, I coul dn' t st and her e

7 and say what I ' m sayi ng. What I wi l l say t o you

8 t oni ght , um, l i ke I t ol d you, God hel ped me to see that

9 i t ' s not j ust about bl ack peopl e. I t ' s about poor

10 peopl e. And I ' ve come a l ong way. I knew t hat I

11 coul dn' t l i ve wi t h hate. You know, as my mother

12 has sai d t o so many "I f we had t r i ed t o l i ve wi t h

13 hate i n our hear t s, we' d pr obabl y be dead now. "

14 But I ' ve come t o r eal i ze t hat we have t o work

15 t oget her and, you know, i t ' s sad t hat we don' t have

16 a r oom f ul l of whi t e and bl acks her e t oni ght ,

17 because we have t o overcome t he di vi si ons t hat we

18 have. We have t o get t o t he poi nt where, as Toni

19 Mor r i son sai d, "Race exi st s but i t doesn' t mat t er . "

20 We have t o wor k j ust as har d. I know i t ' s - - you

21 know, t hat di vi s i on i s st i l l her e, but our

22 communi t i es ar e not goi ng t o t hr i ve. You know, our

23 chi l dr en won' t have t he - - t he communi t i es t hat

24 t hey need t o be abl e t o st ay i n and l i ve i n and - -

25 and have a good l i f e, i f we can' t f i gur e t hi s out ,






Page 19

1 you- al l . Whi t e peopl e, bl ack peopl e, Hi spani c

2 peopl e, we al l have to do our par t t o make our

3 communi t i es a saf e pl ace, a heal t hy pl ace, a good

4 envi r onment .

5 You know, so t hat compani es - - why woul d a

6 company want t o l ocat e i n some of t hese pl aces?

7 You know, I - - I - - i t ' s so sad t hat , as I go

8 around t he Stat e, peopl e ask me, "Where ar e you

9 f r om?" "Yeah, I ' m l i vi ng i n Al bany. " "Oh, a l ot

10 of cr i me t here. " You know, nothi ng good you coul d

11 say t oo much about Al bany anymore. And - - and a

12 l ot of i t i s br ought on by f ol ks who l i ve t her e,

13 you know? Peopl e who l i ve t here. You r ead t he

14 paper . I f you r ead t he paper and l i st en t o t he TV

15 st at i on t her e i n Al bany, you woul dn' t want t o go

16 t her e and l i ve. You know, peopl e ar e st i l l

17 f i ght i ng each ot her wor se, I bel i eve, now. That at

18 l east i t was open dur i ng t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Movement ,

19 i t was a l i ck her e and there and my husband got t he

20 br unt of a l ot of t hem. But , um, now i t ' s - - i t ' s

21 r eal l y i n such a way t hat i t hur t s because i t ' s

22 goi ng t o keep t he j obs away.

23 You know, you can go t o a communi t y and you

24 can j ust about t el l - - and I ' m t r avel l i ng al l

25 ar ound wher e peopl e work t oget her , you know.






Page 20

1 You' r e not l osi ng t hi s many j obs. You' r e get t i ng a

2 f ew, you know. We have a beaut i f ul count r y. We

3 have a beaut i f ul par t of t hi s St at e; t he sout her n

4 par t of t he St at e, but i t ' s not t hr i vi ng and we

5 need t o f i gur e out why. Wel l , we ki nd of know, but

6 we need to wor k on why.

7 And - - and young f ol ks, you know, when I was

8 gr owi ng up, you had t o get home f r om school and go

9 t o t he f i el ds. But y' al l don' t have t o do t hat no

10 more. You shoul d be excel l i ng, you know.

11 Par ent s, you' ve got to set some goal s f or your

12 chi l dr en, you know. You cannot al l ow t hem not t o

13 t r y t o become t he best t hey coul d be, and not

14 st udy, "St udyi ng won' t get you t her e. " You know.

15 Y' al l must l ove worki ng i n t he chi cken house. I

16 know t hey cl osed f or one year .

17 But change has t o st art wi t h us and - - and - - and

18 - - and- - and somehow we' ve got t o make the ot her

19 si de of t own work wi t h us. We' ve got t o make our

20 communi t i es what t hey need t o be and our young peopl e,

21 I ' m not pi cki ng on you, but y' al l got t o - - y' al l got t o

22 st ep up t o t he pl at e. You' ve got t o st ep up t o t he

23 pl ate. You ar e capabl e of bei ng ver y, ver y smar t

24 peopl e. You are capabl e of bei ng t hose doctors and

25 l awyer s. You' r e capabl e of r unni ng your own






Page 21

1 busi ness.

2 That ' s what - - one of t hi ngs i n t he posi t i on

3 I ' m i n r eal l y - - one of t he t hi ngs t hat r eal l y hur t

4 - - one of t he progr ams we had wi t h some of t he most

5 money i n i t , you know, i t ' s wi t h busi ness and

6 i ndust r y. And I si t up t her e and I ' m si gni ng of f

7 on si x mi l l i on, t hr ee mi l l i on, t wo mi l l i on - - but

8 who i s i t goi ng t o? Not one so f ar . And when I

9 got a r epor t on wher e we ar e wi t h i t , we' r e - -

10 we' r e appr oachi ng 80 mi l l i on dol l ar s si nce Oct ober

11 1st . But not one di me t o a bl ack busi ness, not

12 one.

13 You know, and I know as a young per son you' r e

14 t hi nki ng good t i me. But , hey, don' t l et l i f e pass

15 you by havi ng a good t i me. You can enj oy i t , but be

16 ser i ous, you know. And t her e ar e j obs i n

17 agr i cul t ur e. Ther e - - t her e - - t her e' s a pr ogr am,

18 t he 1890 Schol ar s Progr am and t hey ar e - - t hey' r e

19 connect ed wi t h ever y 1890 l and- gr ant i nst i t ut i on,

20 and - - and l et me t el l you what t hat i s. That ' s

21 t he bl ack l and- gr ant i nst i t ut i ons, and t her e ar e

22 about , uh, 17 and Tuskegee.

23 Um, t hey - - You can act ual l y get a schol ar shi p,

24 and For t Val l ey St at e i s t he mai n gr ant i n Geor gi a,

25 t he 1890; t he 1862 i s t he whi t e l and- gr ant , t hat ' s






Page 22

1 t he Uni ver si t y of Geor gi a. You can get a

2 schol ar shi p and ever y summer you work at one of

3 t hose agenci es whi l e you are i n school . And when

4 you get out , i t ' s a aut omat i c j ob. Agenci es l i ke

5 Nat ur al Resour ce and Conservat i on Ser vi ce, t hat ' s

6 NRCS; Far m Ser vi ce Agency, t hat ' s t he ol d Far mer s

7 Home Admi ni st r at i on; Rur al Devel opment , t hose are

8 t he maj or t hr ee. But t here are other s, so many

9 ot her j obs, so many - - j ust i n Rur al Devel opment

10 nat i onwi de, t here ar e over 6, 000 empl oyees, but you

11 go up t here t o Washi ngt on, t o t he Depar t ment of

12 Agr i cul t ur e, i t ' s on bot h si des of t he st r eet .

13 I n Rur al Devel opment , t here are 129 empl oyees

14 and guess how many of t hem are peopl e of col or?

15 Anybody want t o take a guess, t hat ' s i n Geor gi a? I

16 got - - t here are 129 i n my agency. How many? I t ' s

17 mor e t han t wo, l i t t l e mor e t han 12. Ther e ar e l ess

18 t han 20 of us. We have si x ar ea of f i ces i n t he

19 St at e and sub- ar ea of f i ces. And when I l ook at

20 who' s comi ng up t he l i ne i n t he agenci es - - i n t he

21 agency, t here ar e not many of us, because we t hi nk

22 "agr i cul t ur e" i s a bad wor d. We t hi nk i t ' s wor ki ng

23 i n t he f i el ds. Some of t he best payi ng j obs you

24 ever want t o have, okay?

25 I won' t keep at you wi t h t hat ki nd of st uf f .






Page 23

1 But l et - - j ust know t hat , um, you can - - t her e' s

2 anot her poi nt I want t o make, t hough. You know,

3 comi ng out of sl aver y bl ack f ol ks used t o hel p each

4 ot her . That ' s how t hey bui l t t he school s t hat we

5 have. You know, t hat ' s how t hey bought t he l and

6 t hat we have, t hat we have about l ost al l of i t .

7 You know t hat our peopl e had over 15 mi l l i on acr es,

8 and, as bl ack peopl e, we have l ess t han 2 mi l l i on

9 acr es of f ar m l and l ef t . And we wi l l sel l i t f or

10 not hi ng. For not hi ng.

11 You know, I was hel pi ng a f ami l y here

12 r ecent l y. Fi ve hundr ed and f i f t een acr es of l and;

13 never had a dr op of debt on i t si nce the

14 gr andf ather bought i t years ago and he - - he di ed

15 i n 1974. And t wo cousi ns up i n t he Nort h; guess

16 what t hey deci ded? They t r i ed t o f or ce a sal e of

17 ever y acr e of i t . And t hey want ed t hat t o - - one

18 of t hei r aunt s had spent al l of her l i f e on t he l and.

19 She was 93 years ol d when she di ed. And she di ed

20 af t er t hose "For Sal e" si gns went up out t her e on

21 t hat f ar m - - auct i on si gn went up on t he f ar m. She

22 was i n t he hospi t al . The next mont h she was dead.

23 That was J anuar y, she was dead by Oct ober .

24 But we kept worki ng at i t . And we f ound some

25 honest l awyer s, t hey wer e whi t e. I wi sh I coul d say






Page 24

1 t hat about al l l awyer s, especi al l y bl ack l awyer s,

2 but t hey wi l l ni ckel and di me you t o deat h. I

3 don' t have - - I ' m sor r y. I know I have t oo l i t t l e

4 opi ni on t o most l awyer s. But anyway t hat l and has

5 been saved, you know. But t hey were t r yi ng t o f orce

6 a sal e of al l of i t . They' l l event ual l y get , uh, 62

7 acr es of t he 515, and guess what ; t hey have a whi t e

8 man al r eady l i ned up t o buy i t . And i t ' s t he l and

9 on t he creek, whi ch i s what he want ed.

10 Um, but you can - - what I want t o say t o you. You

11 can do good, and y' al l goi ng t o be smar t . You' r e

12 goi ng t o go on and - - and get good j obs. But r each

13 back and hel p somebody. That ' s what we wer e

14 t aught . That ' s what our f ol k di d, you know. I t

15 l ooks l i ke t he mor e - - t he bet t er we do, t he - - t he

16 mor e f r ee we are, t he more di vi ded we become, you

17 know. I t l ooks l i ke we don' t car e about each ot her

18 anymor e. You know, t hat ' s why ki ds can j ust - - you

19 know, y' al l know what happened i n t he day. You di d

20 somet hi ng wr ong, ever ybody i n the communi t y got

21 you, you know. Wel l , t hat doesn' t happen anymore.

22 And we have t o get back t o t hat .

23 I f we goi ng t o r ebui l d our communi t i es, i f we

24 goi ng t o deal wi t h some or al l of t he pr obl ems we

25 have i n our communi t i es, i t wi l l t ake al l of us






Page 25

1 wor ki ng t oget her t o sol ve t hem, we can' t t ur n our

2 backs. And you never know who you' r e hel pi ng. You

3 coul d be hel pi ng t he second bl ack Pr esi dent of t he

4 Uni t ed St ates, you know.

5 Now, I - - I need t o t el l you a l i t t l e bi t

6 about Rur al Devel opment . Um, t here - - t here are at

7 l east 40 pr ogr ams at Rur al Devel opment , but I ' l l

8 j ust t al k t o you br i ef l y about a coupl e of t hem.

9 The mai n one i s t he Housi ng Pr ogram. We have mor e

10 money f or si ngl e- f ami l y housi ng, di r ect l oans, and

11 t hat ' s l oans f r om t he agency, t han we' ve ever had

12 i n t he hi st or y of t he pr ogr am.

13 But we' r e havi ng t r oubl e get t i ng t hat money

14 out t he door and guess why? Cr edi t i ssues. They

15 had t o send me ext r a hel p f r omWashi ngt on t o t r y t o

16 hel p because of t he st i mul us money. See, we have

17 mor e money f or di r ect l oans f or t he l ow - - ver y l ow

18 - - i ncome and moderat e i ncome i ndi vi dual s. And

19 guess what ? Those l oans - - i t ' s a 100% l oan. You

20 can buy t he l and and bui l d a house; 100% l oans. No

21 pr i vat e mor t gage i nsur ance, t hose l oans are

22 di rect l y f r om USDA. And f ol ks wi l l l et a l i t t l e

23 cel l phone and other st uf f you don' t even need

24 keepi ng you f r om bei ng abl e t o - - t o acqui r e an

25 asset t hat you r eal l y need - - whi ch i s a home.






Page 26

1 We' ve got t o be more caref ul about our cr edi t .

2 I was t al ki ng wi t h a young l ady, who' s

3 act ual l y a r el at i ve i n a maj or posi t i on, and - - and

4 she - - um - - she was l et t i ng t he hospi t al - - t he

5 hospi t al was get t i ng r eady t o, um, gar ni sh - - gar ni sh

6 one of her - - I mean, her check and she works f or t he

7 ci t y. And I sai d, "Do you under st and t hat goes on your

8 cr edi t ?" See, what t he peopl e f r om t he hospi t al

9 count ed on, you know, she - - i t was af t er she had had

10 her chi l d. I sai d, "You coul d have t ol d t hem "I "

11 - - " I can pay $25 a mont h" and they woul d have

12 accept ed t hat . " But she di dn' t make t hat st ep. So,

13 now her e t hey wer e get t i ng r eady to star t t aki ng i t

14 f r om her pay. And t hat goes on her cr edi t . And I

15 sai d, "You want a house one day. You' l l never be

16 abl e t o get a house. " Now, she does some f ool i sh

17 st uf f wi t h her money. I won' t go i nt o some of t he

18 f ool i sh stuf f . But I - - I want t o say t hat t o - -

19 t o us.

20 And young peopl e, you know, t hat ' s one of t he

21 t hi ngs I r emember f r ommy f ather . He used t o t al k

22 t o us about busi ness and cr edi t . And what he sai d

23 t o us, "You need t o al ways keep a good cr edi t

24 r at i ng. You may not have any money, but you can

25 al ways get some. " And we need t o keep t hat i n






Page 27

1 mi nd. We need t o st op t r yi ng t o get t hi ngs we

2 don' t need. You know, t ake t he t i me t o get t he

3 money - - you know, t o save t he money f or what you

4 want , and you can do t hat . You can do t hat . You

5 can do t hat . You don' t have t o have everyt hi ng

6 r i ght now, okay?

7 We al so have, i n addi t i on t o t he, uh, di r ect l oans

8 f r om t he agency, we ar e - - t he - - t he guar ant eed

9 l oan pr ogr am f or housi ng and, uh, t hese - - t hose l oans

10 ar e f or peopl e wi t h a sl i ght l y hi gher i ncome. That

11 - - t hat pr ogr am has been so successf ul t hat we ar e

12 about t o r un out of money. And I ' m t al ki ng about

13 al l over t he count ry. I ' m t al ki ng about bi l l i ons.

14 And i n Geor gi a, you know i n 2008, t hey made l i ke

15 1, 265 guar ant eed l oans. Last year , we di d al most

16 4, 500. And t hi s year , i f t he money had not r un

17 out , i f i t doesn' t r un out - - I ' m hopi ng t hey goi ng

18 t o get some mor e, uh, we mi ght do as many as 12, 000,

19 you know. I f t her e was ever a t i me f or peopl e t o

20 become home owners, now i s t he t i me. And you can

21 t hank Presi dent Obama f or t hat .

22 And I sai d somet hi ng br i ef l y t o you about the

23 - - t he busi ness, uh, and i ndust r y money. We' ve got t o

24 get our act t oget her . We' ve got t o st ar t t hi nki ng

25 about becomi ng ent r epr eneur s, you know. And young






Page 28

1 peopl e, you need t o thi nk of t hat as you - - as you, uh,

2 mat ure. You know, get some educat i on, l ear n how t o

3 do i t r i ght , and t hen t hi nk of goi ng i n t he

4 busi ness. Unt i l our communi t i es l ook at how we can

5 gr ow our own busi nesses, we' l l be - - we' l l f or ever

6 be at t he mercy of t hese compani es t hat wi l l come

7 i n, use up t he t ax credi t s, and l eave.

8 Hey, di dn' t y' al l l ose t he chi cken i ndust r y

9 her e? They wi l l use up your t ax cr edi t and move on

10 t o another communi t y and use t hei r s t oo, and l eave

11 you hi gh and dry. We can do some - - you know, you

12 can t hi nk of cr eat i ng your busi nesses and maki ng

13 t hose dol l ar s f l ow over and over i n your own

14 communi t y.

15 Ther e' s al so t he Repai r Loan, uh, Pr ogr am f or - -

16 f or seni or ci t i zens 62 and over who ar e l ower

17 i ncome. You can qual i f y f or a gr ant of 7, 500

18 dol l ar s. Or , i f you have r epayment abi l i t y and

19 t hose payment s can - - some of t hem are very l ow,

20 $25 a mont h. You get a one - - one per cent l oan up t o 25

21 - - $20, 000 dol l ar s. And t he - - t he $7, 500 i s onl y

22 f or heal t h and saf et y i ssues, you know, l i ke

23 somethi ng wi t h your bathr oom or somethi ng el se i n

24 t he house. But i f you want ed t o do some

25 r enovat i ons up t o $20, 000, you can get a one






Page 29

1 per cent l oan t o be abl e t o do t hat .

2 Um, I won' t go i nto t he ot her pr ogr ams because a

3 l ot of t hem ar e di f f er ent t ypes pr ogr ams, uh, f or

4 ci t i es. And, you know, I had a vi si t f r om t he

5 Mayor and your Ci t y Manager and, um - - and I ' ve t hought

6 about y' al l a l ot and I ' m my - - my commi t ment i s t o

7 t he r ural area. Um, my commi t ment , even more so, i s t o

8 Sout h Geor gi a, um, t hat ' s wher e I ' m f r om. I can' t

9 say t hat up i n Nor t h Geor gi a, but t hey don' t seem t o

10 have a pr obl em get t i ng t he money.

11 Okay. I won' t keep goi ng on t oni ght , but j ust

12 l et me say, t her e i s a sayi ng, "Li f e i s a

13 gr i ndst one; but i t " - - "but whet her i t gr i nds us

14 down or pol i shes us up depends on us, " you know.

15 Thank you.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25




Transcription of Video FINAL - March 27, 20Sherrod v. Breitbart, et al. NAACP Sherrod Spee




Page

A

ability 28:18able 14:6 18:24 25:24

26:16 29:1accepted 26:12access 15:23acquire 25:24acre 23:17acres 23:7,9,12 24:7act 27:24acts 6:13addition 27:7 Administ rat ion 2:12

22:7affect 4:1age 3:12 9:6agencies 22:3,4,20agency 22:6,16,21

25:11 27:8ago 3:10,25 12:3 18:6

23:14agriculture 2:21,24,25

13:9,11 14:1 21:1722:12,22

AL 1:1 Albany 3:22 8:12 9:14

9:19 11:10 19:9,1119:15

allow 10:19 20:12allowed 10:21 America 2:12 Americus 15:15answer 8:24 9:4

anybody 3:3 22:15anymore 19:11 24:18

24:21anyway 10:13 24:4appealed 4:9appointed 11:23appointment 14:14approaching 21:10appropriate 4:12area 22:18 29:7asking 12:6asset 25:25assumed 13:9 At lanta 5:21attended 13:14

auction 23:21 Audio 15:16aunts 23:18automatic 22:4

B

baby 7:24,25back 4:4 6:17,17 7:3

9:16,18 12:6 13:1216:3 24:13,22

backed 10:20

backs 25:2bad 7:10,12 8:4 22:22Baker 3:13,14,20,23

5:15,20 6:1,10 11:3bankruptcy 13:15 14:7

15:1bathroom 28:23beaten 4:24beautiful 20:2,3becoming 27:25bedrooms 12:6beginning 4:3believe 14:23,24 19:17best 7:19 20:13 22:23better 7:21 18:2 24:15

Bill 7:11billions 27:13bi t 3:5 9:18 25:5black 3:14 4:2,14 5:14

5:16 8:4,25 10:1411:2 12:16,16 13:513:21 14:5 15:15,2016:4,4 17:1,22 18:919:1 21:11,21 23:3,824:1 25:3

blacks 16:10,18 18:16blocks 8:6blue 8:10Board 2:8 11:5boat 16:11Bobby

4:5,6,8,15,195:9body 5:9born 8:14 9:25borrow 8:5bought 23:5,14boy 7:15 8:10boys 7:11boy's 8:9,13BREITBART 1:1brick 8:4,5briefly 25:8 27:22brother 8:14 9:24brought 19:12brunt 17:25 19:20build 8:3,5 25:20built 8:1,7 23:4bunch 9:21buried 17:19burned 9:23Bushes 17:20business 21:1,5,11

26:22 27:23 28:4businesses 28:5,12

buy 24:8 25:20

C

California 4:25called 5:11 9:21 10:14

14:13 15:10calling 15:12capable 20:23,24,25care 13:18 14:9 17:13

17:18 24:17careful 26:1carrying 11:7cars 6:18case 3:15,17,21,25 5:3caused 14:6cell 25:23Century 16:4chair 11:4

change 9:8 18:4 20:17Chapter 13:15 14:715:1

charge 4:12charged 4:14Charles 11:9check 26:6chicken 20:15 28:8child 26:10children 18:23 20:12choose 8:6cigars 7:23cities 29:4citizens 28:16city 26:7 29:5

civil 4:7,15,20,23 5:719:18Claude 4:1,2,8closed 20:16college 6:23,25 7:1color 2:23 16:9 22:14come 6:16,17 7:3

12:13,24 17:7 18:1018:14 28:6

comfortable 2:15coming 5:5 22:20 23:3commitment 9:5,9

11:8 12:3,15,16 29:629:7

Committee 11:9communities 2:13

11:12 18:22,23 19:320:20 24:23,25 28:4

community 9:1 19:2324:20 28:10,14

companies 19:5 28:6company 19:6connected 21:19Conservation 22:5

Constitution 5:21continue 11:21continued 11:15

convicted 4:5,13conviction 4:9,10,18convinced 7:14Coordinating 11:9COPY 1:3cotton 6:2counted 26:9country 20:2 27:13County 3:13,14,20,23

5:15,17,20 6:1,109:3 10:15 11:3 14:3

couple 25:8Court 4:10courthouse 5:8 15:9cousins 23:15

created 17:4,24creating 28:12credit 25:14 26:1,8,14

26:22,23 28:9credits 28:7creek 24:9crime 19:10cross 9:23cucumbers 6:2

D

daddy 7:22dangerous 11:20date 14:17daughters 8:8

day 3:9 7:19 8:1224:19 26:15days 4:14 15:8dead 18:13 23:22,23deal 24:24death 8:23 9:4,6 10:9

24:2debt 23:13decide 13:2decided 16:22,24

23:16decision 12:9Department 13:9,11

14:1 22:11depends 29:14depriving 4:5,7,15,20Development 11:24

22:7,9,13 25:6,7devote 9:8died 8:15 23:14,19,19difference 16:8 17:11

17:11different 3:17 29:3dime 21:11 24:2

direct 25:10,17 27:7directly 25:22Director 11:24

Directors 2:8discrimination 6:13displayed 5:9divide 16:25divided 17:5 24:16division 18:21divisions 18:17doctors 20:24doing 6:3,7 7:20 9:4

12:24 15:10 17:21dollars 21:10 28:13,1

28:21door 25:14dream 5:25dreamt 8:19

drop 23:13drove 6:18dry 28:11dues 12:1duration 15:17

E

early 8:12 11:14edge 11:18education 6:8,9 11:5

28:2eight 7:14 17:19either 13:10elected 11:2elevate 18:1

elite 16:24employees 22:10,13enacted 13:16endure 6:14endured 17:19enjoy 21:15entrepreneurs 27:25environment 19:4especially 3:9 8:21

17:23 24:1ET 1:1evening 2:1,10 3:8events 5:6eventually 24:6everybody 6:22 8:9

15:12 24:20excelling 20:10exists 18:19extra 25:15eyes 13:22

F

faced 12:20 13:6 16:1






Page

fact 8:1,10 13:4families 2:16family 13:16 23:11

far 5:25 21:8farm 2:20 5:25,25 6:76:10 8:21 12:2114:22 22:6 23:9,2123:21

farmer 5:24 12:2113:16 14:5 15:10,16

farmers 14:12 22:6Farmer's 8:3farmland 13:5father 3:13 5:24 7:7,10

8:25 26:21father's 3:10,17 8:22

9:6 10:9federal 3:3 4:4

felt 8:23 13:24fields 3:1 20:9 22:23fifteen 23:12fighting 19:17figure 18:25 20:5figured 13:17file 14:6 15:1,1,2fill 2:23filled 12:5FINAL 1:3finally 15:14find 6:24,25 15:13fine 14:8first 8:2,25 9:2,13,15

11:2 12:20five

8:7 23:12flow 28:13folk 6:4,11 24:14folks 17:12 19:12 20:7

23:3 25:22foolish 26:16,18forbidding 17:3force 13:7 23:16 24:5foreclose 14:2foreclosure 14:13

15:2forever 28:5Fort 9:13,16,20 21:24forward 8:19found 23:24four 7:8 9:24free 6:21,22 24:16freedom 16:7friend 7:19friends 2:16full 13:7 18:16funeral 3:10furniture 8:13

G

garnish 26:5,5gathered 9:22

Gator 5:12,15generations 17:8Georgia 5:5,19 11:15

13:11 14:12 21:2422:1,15 27:14 29:8,9

getting 7:21 8:2014:22 20:1 25:1326:5,13 29:10

girl 3:12 7:22girls 7:10,12give 2:17 13:3,7 17:22given 14:17giving 7:23go 2:17 6:16,20,23 7:1

8:12 9:4 10:5,22

11:7 13:12 14:14,2219:7,15,23 20:822:11 24:12 26:1729:2

goal 6:22goals 20:11God 11:22 12:6,12,14

12:17 18:8goes 26:7,14going 13:2 14:8 18:5

18:22 19:22 21:824:11,12,23,2427:17 28:3 29:11

gonna 7:23 10:11good 2:1 3:6 11:22

12:14 18:25 19:3,1021:14,15 24:11,1226:23

goodness 16:3Gosh 17:6Government 3:3 5:2graduates 9:15grand 3:18grandfather 23:14grant 21:24 28:17grassroots 12:1grew 2:20grinds 29:13grindstone 29:13grow 2:12 28:5

growing 5:10,24 20:8guaranteed 27:8,15guess 22:14,15 23:15

24:7 25:14,19gun 10:3,17,25

H

Hall 4:6,6,8,15,19

Hall's 5:9hand 13:24handle 15:13

happen 24:21happened 5:7 8:24 9:59:12 10:5,19,2311:17 12:10 24:19

happening 9:16 16:21hard 18:20hate 18:11,13heads 17:10health 17:13,18 28:22healthy 19:3hear 2:24heard 3:2,3,24 4:22,24heart 3:8hearts 18:13heavy 3:8

held 3:11help 2:12,13 12:21,2413:2,6,12 15:13,2223:3 24:13 25:15,16

helped 18:8helping 23:11 25:2,3helps 16:1hey 16:24 21:14 28:8he'll 12:18high 7:7 28:11higher 18:1 27:10Hispanic 15:21 19:1history 17:23 25:12holler 5:13home 6:18 8:1,3 9:17

9:22 20:8 22:7 25:2527:20honest 23:25hoping 27:17hospital 23:22 26:4,5

26:8house 8:3,4,5,7 9:23

10:1 12:5 20:1525:20 26:15,1628:24

housing 25:9,10 27:9How's 7:20http 1:8hundred 23:12hurt 21:3hurts 19:21husband 6:25 7:2

10:10 19:19

I

income 25:18,1827:10 28:17

indentured 16:5,5indict 3:19

individuals 25:18industry 21:6 27:23

28:8

injunction 14:10injunctions 13:25injustices 16:15institution 21:19institutions 21:21insurance 25:21intent 4:21 5:1interrupted 15:16issue 4:21 17:17issues 25:14 28:22it'll 6:7

J

JANE 1:18,25January 23:23

job 3:4 13:24 22:4 jobs 2:22,23 19:2220:1 21:16 22:9,2324:12

Johnson 5:11,15June 8:15 9:25 10:8 jury 3:18 4:4Justice 4:11,16 just ifying 4:17

K

keep 10:16 17:5,1419:22 22:25 26:2326:25 29:11

keeping 25:24

kept 4:25 23:24kids 24:18killed 5:14 9:1,2kind 2:2 13:18 20:5

22:25kinds 11:25King 4:24knew 8:22 18:10know 2:3,19 3:21,24

4:12 6:3,4,7,11,156:16,24 7:5,17,188:6,7,18 9:10,1410:3,23,25 11:7,1211:22 12:3,11,13,1712:20,23,25 13:22

14:3,15 15:6,20 16:216:3,10,16,16,19,2317:4,15,16,24,2418:3,5,11,15,20,2118:22 19:5,7,10,1319:16,23,25 20:2,5,720:10,12,14,16 21:521:13,13,16 23:1,2,5

23:7,11 24:3,5,14,124:18,19,19,21 25:225:4 26:9,20 27:2,3

27:14,19,25 28:2,128:22 29:4,14

L

L 5:11lady 26:2laid 12:8land 13:7 15:8 23:5,9

23:12,18 24:4,825:20

land-grant 21:19,2121:25

late 16:3lately 17:17law 5:4,15

laws 17:2lawyer 13:13 14:10,114:17,18,19,20,2415:3,6,10,13

lawyers 20:25 23:2524:1,1,4

lawyer's 14:16layoffs 3:2leader 9:1 11:10learn 28:2learned 6:17 16:2leave 6:10,15,16 9:7

10:20 28:7,10left 11:14 23:9letting 26:4

level 12:1lick 19:19life 2:15,15 6:11 9:8

17:2 18:25 21:1423:18 29:12

lifted 14:10line 22:20lined 24:8listen 19:14little 3:5,20 6:3 9:18

17:22 18:1 22:1724:3 25:5,22

live 7:4 8:14 18:11,1218:24 19:12,13,16

lived 16:19living 7:1 19:9loan 8:2 25:19 27:9

28:15,20 29:1loans 25:10,11,17,19

25:20,21 27:7,9,15locate 19:6located 3:21long 10:9,15 12:22

18:10






Page

look 9:10,11 22:1928:4

looked 14:21

looking 6:17 16:14,21looks 17:6 24:15,17lose 28:8losing 3:3 20:1lost 13:5 23:6lo t 3:2 4:22,22,24 5:14

11:12,16 19:9,12,2029:3,6

love 20:15loved 7:12low 25:17,17 28:19lower 28:16lynched 4:2

M

main 21:24 25:9major 22:8 26:3making 12:15 28:12man 3:13,19 4:2,13,14

8:4 9:17 10:17 24:8Manager 29:5March 7:6married 16:9,19marry 10:11 17:3matter 18:19mature 28:2Mayor 29:5mean 5:16 7:7 26:6means 5:18mean-spirited 17:16

meet 14:15members 2:8men 3:15 9:3,22 10:14

10:16,20mercy 28:6met 9:17 10:10 14:16miles 3:22 15:15million 21:7,7,7,10

23:7,8mind 27:1missed 2:4moderate 25:18momma 7:20,23money 8:5 15:6 16:16

16:24 17:12,15 21:525:10,13,16,1726:17,24 27:3,3,1227:16,23 29:10

month 23:22 26:1128:20

months 8:15Morrison 18:19mortgage 25:21mother 7:9,14,17 8:11

9:24 10:1,2,24,2518:11

move 2:5 28:9

moved 8:19Movement 4:23 5:78:16 10:8 11:11,1419:18

movies 10:4moving 8:20murder 3:14,18 4:5,12murdered 3:13,16,19murdering 4:13,19

N

names 3:24nationwide 22:10Natural 22:5need 3:4 8:17 16:22,24

17:14 18:24 20:5,620:20 25:5,23,2526:23,25 27:1,2 28:1

needed 13:11 15:2217:25

never 3:16,24 7:3,5,618:3 23:13 25:226:15

new 8:1,7Newton 5:8nickel 24:2nickname 7:11night 8:22 9:5,23 10:1

10:19,23 11:8 12:5,8Nonviolent 11:9

north 6:16,20,22 7:2,38:20 10:11,12 23:1529:9

notice 14:13November 14:20NRCS 22:6N.A.A.C.P 2:7

O

Obama 2:11 27:21obvious 14:25occurred 3:14October 21:10 23:23office 14:16 15:12offices 22:18,19

official 11:3of-county 5:18Oh 16:2 19:9okay 3:4 12:2 13:24

22:24 27:6 29:11old 14:22 22:6 23:19older 6:4,11oldest 7:9

Olivia 2:2,19open 19:18opened 13:22

opens 12:13opinion 4:11,16,1724:4

opportunity 16:12organized 10:8outside 9:22overcome 18:17overturned 4:10overturning 4:18owners 27:20

P

paid 12:1painted 8:10paper 19:14,14

Parents 20:11part 11:14 19:2 20:3,4pass 21:14path 12:8,12,18pay 26:11,14paying 14:18,19 15:5

15:5 22:23payments 28:19peanuts 6:2people 2:23 3:6,14 5:4

5:12,14 6:15 8:1811:22 12:5,11,16,1612:20 13:5 15:2316:16,23 17:1,17,2318:9,10 19:1,1,2,8

19:13,16,25 20:2020:24 22:14 23:7,826:8,20 27:10,1928:1

percent 28:20 29:1periodically 3:15person 8:2,25 13:6

21:13phone 10:7,14 25:23pick 8:13picked 8:11picking 6:1,2 20:21place 2:14 17:2 19:3,3places 19:6plate 20:22,23pleasure 2:3,9point 5:22 18:18 23:2pole 6:6polishes 29:14poor 12:20 13:20

15:23 16:10,10,1716:18 18:9

porch 10:2,24position 21:2 26:3

positions 11:23,25POSTED 1:7power 17:12,14

prayed 12:4praying 12:6President 2:7 17:22

25:3 27:21private 25:21probably 3:24 10:18

11:17 18:13problem 29:10problems 24:24program 21:17,18

25:9,12 27:9,1128:15

programs 21:4 25:729:2,3

proud 2:11

prove 4:18 5:1provided 13:15proving 4:21punished 3:16put 6:6 12:18 13:23

15:5 17:2

Q

qualify 28:17quality 2:15

R

Race 18:19racism 17:4,18racist 6:13

rating 26:24reach 24:12read 10:18 19:13,14ready 26:5,13realize 12:19 15:22

18:14really 7:18 12:19 15:19

19:21 21:3,3 25:25rebuild 24:23received 14:12recognized 11:1referred 5:12refused 3:18relative 4:6 26:3remember 4:25 26:21

remembered 15:14renovations 28:25rented 6:19Repair 28:15repayment 28:18report 13:12 21:9reported 5:21REPORTING 1:18,25

Republicans 17:21Resource 22:5revealed 13:19

ride 5:17,20right 2:21 27:6 28:3rights 4:7,15,20,23 5

19:18road 5:22Rodney 4:24room 8:8,9,9,13 18:1ROSE 1:18,25run 27:12,16,17running 20:25rural 2:12,13 11:24

22:7,9,13 25:6,729:7

S

sad 18:15 19:7safe 19:3safety 28:22sale 23:16,20 24:6sat 14:17,20save 12:21 13:6 27:3saved 24:5saying 5:1 18:7 29:12Scholars 21:18scholarship 21:23

22:2school 7:7,19 8:12

9:13,20 20:8 22:3schools 23:4Screws 4:2,2,8 5:2

seat 11:18second 2:19 25:3see 8:14 10:11,25

15:13,14,18 16:718:8 25:16 26:8

seen 14:4 17:16,17segregation 6:12sell 23:9send 25:15senior 7:6,16 28:16sent 13:10September 9:25serious 21:16servants 16:5,5 17:1Service 22:5,6serving 11:4,5set 20:11seven 15:8 16:6shake 6:5shaking 6:2share 3:7 15:25sheriff 4:1,19 5:10sheriffs 3:23Sherrod 1:1 11:10






Page

she'll 11:1shortly 10:9show 5:9 12:7,17,23

13:1shy 2:24sick 7:17side 20:19sides 22:12sign 23:21signing 21:6signs 23:20single-family 25:10sister 7:13,13 10:3,24sisters 7:8 9:24 10:2,7

10:14si t 21:6situation 18:4situations 11:20

six 7:9 21:7 22:18skin 16:9slavery 16:13 23:3slaves 16:11,12slightly 27:10smart 20:23 24:11sold 15:9solve 25:1somebody 24:13son 7:10,12,25son's 8:9sorry 4:8 24:3south 6:23 7:1 8:21,21

9:7,7 10:12 29:8southern 20:3southwest

3:22 5:511:15spent 15:11 23:18stand 18:6start 20:17 26:13

27:24started 8:16 11:11

16:14,15,17,21 17:6starting 10:8State 9:14,19 11:23

19:8 20:3,4 21:2422:19

States 25:4station 19:15stay 9:7 11:15 12:9

17:12 18:24stayed 11:12step 20:22,22 26:12steps 15:9stimulus 25:16stop 15:2 27:1stopped 5:20store 7:22strange 4:3

street 22:12struggle 12:19struggling 13:4

student 5:4 11:9studied 5:3study 20:14Studying 20:14stuff 10:4,4,22 11:16

17:20 22:25 25:2326:17,18

sub-area 22:19successful 27:11Sullivan 1:19summer 22:2superior 12:23 13:1supervisor 14:3Supreme 4:10surface 17:19

surprise 7:16surrounded 10:16

T

tag 5:18,18take 5:5,8,22 6:5 13:17

13:18 22:15 24:2527:2

taken 14:9talk 2:5 25:8 26:21talking 6:4,11,17

12:22 26:2 27:12,13taught 24:14tax 28:7,9tell 3:20 8:17 9:17 10:6

11:2,18 12:14 19:2421:20 25:5ten 2:4thank 2:2 27:21 29:15theirs 28:10Theresa 1:19thing 3:25 4:4things 5:6 9:10,12

11:17 12:10,13,1812:18 21:2,3 26:2127:1

think 2:25 15:4,1216:1 18:2 22:21,2228:1,3,12

thinking 4:20 14:921:14 27:24

thought 6:21,21 7:1717:18 29:5

three 3:17 21:7 22:8thrive 18:22thriving 20:4time 3:9 7:14 12:20,22

13:1,25 15:11 21:1421:15 27:2,19,20

times 2:22today 3:10 4:1 17:4told 5:3 6:24 7:25 8:4

8:9,19 9:21 14:2418:8 26:10Toni 18:18tonight 18:8,16 29:11tours 5:6town 20:19training 13:14TRANSCRIPTION 1:7Transcriptionist 1:19transferred 9:18travelling 19:24tremble 5:14tried 18:12 23:16trouble 25:13true 9:9 12:12

try 7:14 13:12 15:1218:4 20:13 25:15trying 12:23 13:1,2

16:15 24:5 27:1turn 25:1Tuskegee 21:22TV 19:14two 3:23 8:14 9:13,15

9:20 14:11 21:722:17 23:15

types 29:3

U

uh 11:1,5 13:23 21:2224:6 27:7,9,18,23

28:1,15 29:3um 7:20 8:22 10:6,1810:22 11:7,16 13:1114:1 16:1,4 18:819:20 21:23 23:124:10 25:6 26:4,529:2,5,7,8

understand 26:7United 25:4University 22:1unknown 15:17USDA 2:22 14:11

25:22use 6:15 28:7,9,10usually 5:4,8U.S 4:9 5:2

V

v 1:1Valley 9:14,16,21

21:24versus 5:2 13:20

15:19

VIDEO 1:7Virginia 10:13visit 29:4

visual 15:16

W

want 2:2,10,13,18,182:20 3:7 5:13 6:9,156:20,25 8:18 12:1114:2 15:25 17:12,2319:6,15 22:15,2423:2 24:10 26:15,1827:4

wanted 5:11 6:10 7:17:10,12 8:3 17:2223:17 24:9 28:24

wanting 5:5wants 12:12

Warren 5:11Washington 22:1125:15

wasn't 8:25 9:2 10:1110:15 12:8 15:5,10

way 4:9 15:4,23 18:1019:21

weeks 9:20 14:11went 9:12,13,20 10:2

11:12 23:20,21we'll 28:5,5we're 21:9,10 25:13we've 11:15,19 17:7

20:18,19 25:11 26:127:23,24

white 3:13,15,19 4:44:13 5:17 9:2,2210:16 12:21 13:6,1313:21,21 14:5,915:21 16:5 18:1619:1 21:25 23:2524:7

whites 16:10,18 18:1wish 23:25witnesses 3:18word 2:24 22:22words 2:3work 2:4,5 6:7 11:21

12:9 15:7,22 16:6,1218:3,14,20 19:2520:6,19 22:2

worked 11:13working 2:3,11,25 9:8

15:18 17:6,9 20:1522:22 23:24 25:1

works 26:6worried 7:19 16:8worse 19:17wouldn't 4:13 19:15

wrong 7:18 24:20wrote 4:11,17www.naacp.org/ne..

1:8

Y

Yeah 19:9year 3:9 5:23 7:6,16

9:19 20:16 27:15,16years 2:4 3:10,25 5:1

6:14 9:9,11,13,1510:5 11:3,6,16,2012:3,10 16:6 17:8,218:6 23:14,19

yesterday 7:23young 3:5,12 8:18

10:17 12:10 17:2320:7,20 21:13 26:2

26:20 27:25youngest 7:13you-all 3:6 11:4 19:1y'all 4:12,25 6:16

13:19 14:18,2117:15 20:9,15,21,224:11,19 28:8 29:6

$

$150,000 5:23$20,000 28:21,25$25 26:11 28:20$7,500 28:21

1

1st 21:111,265 27:151-800-825-3341 1:25100% 25:19,2011 11:3 15:212 13:15 14:7 15:1

22:1712,000 27:18129 22:13,1613 14:1215 23:717 3:12 9:6 21:2217th 16:318th 16:41862 21:25

1890 21:18,19,251961 11:111974 23:15

2

2 23:820 3:22 22:182008 27:14






Page

25 28:20

3

34 11:6

4

4,500 27:1640 15:15 25:740s 4:3400 17:845 3:10 9:9 18:6

5

515 24:7

6

6 9:256,000 22:10

60s 5:2362 24:6 28:1665 8:15 10:8

7

7,500 28:17

8

80 21:1087 14:11

9

93 23:19




1

Babinski, Laurie A.

From: Glass, David (CIV) <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:45 AM

To: Peter A. Farrell ([email protected]); Stephanie Thibault

([email protected]); Bailen, Mark; Hogan, Thomas E.; Harrison J. Dossick

([email protected]); Glass, David (CIV)

Subject: Sherrod: Proposed Electronic Searches

Peter/Stephanie/Mark/Tom/Harrison:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to conduct the following electronic searches for emailspertaining to Shirley Sherrod in response to the subpoenas issued to it in Sherrod v. Breitbart and all outstanding requestsunder the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

For the period June 1-October 31, 2010:

1. USDA proposes to search the Rural Development agency archive for emails of the following individuals:

Shirley SherrodDonnie D. Thomas, Assistant State Director, Georgia State Rural Development OfficeDonna I. Graves, Director, Administrative Programs, Georgia State Rural Development Office

using the following search terms (words in quotes will be searched as a phrase):

“Coffee County NAACP”banquetBreitbartvideoblog“Larry O’Connor”“Freedom Fund”

2. USDA proposes to search exchange server backups for emails of the following individuals:

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of AgricultureKaren Ross, Chief of StaffCarole Jett, Deputy Chief of StaffDavid Lazarus, Senior Advisor to the SecretaryRobert Bonnie, Senior Advisor to the SecretaryMax Holtzman, Senior Advisor to the SecretaryDoug O’Brien, Senior Advisor to the SecretaryJane Hipp, Senior Advisor to the SecretarySarah Bittleman, Senior Advisor to the SecretarySally Cluthe, Director of SchedulingKevin Washo, White House Liaison

Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy SecretarySuzanne Palmieri, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary

Pearlie Reed, Assistant Secretary for Departmental Management Alma Hobbs, Deputy Assistant SecretaryRobin Heard, Deputy Assistant SecretaryBobbi Jeanquart, Chief of StaffW. Russ Ashworth, Director, Management ServicesKaren Messmore, Director, Office of Human Resource Management




2

Joe Leonard, Assistant Secretary for Civil RightsMary N. McNeil, Deputy Assistant Secretary

Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary for Rural DevelopmentCheryl Cook, Deputy Under SecretaryVictor Vasquez, Deputy Under SecretaryLisa Zaina, Chief of StaffTimothy McNeilly, Director, Legislative & Public AffairsJudith Canales, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative ServiceTammye Trevino, Administrator, Rural Housing ServiceJonathan Adelstein, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service

Chris Mather, Director, Office of CommunicationDavid Sandretti, Deputy DirectorCaleb Weaver, Press SecretaryJustin DeJong, Press Secretary

Steve Silverman, Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel

Krysta Harden, Assistant Secretary for Congressional RelationsJohn Berge, Deputy Assistant SecretaryJennifer Yezak, Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs

using the following search terms (words in quotes will be searched as a phrase):

Sherrod“Shirley Sherrod”GA/RD“GA RD”“Georgia RD”GA-RDBreitbart“Larry O’Connor”

3. USDA proposes to search the Office of Executive Correspondence correspondence files for the term “Sherrod”excluding the terms “Sherrod Brown” and “Senator Sherrod” if technically feasible.

The estimated costs of these searches will be approximately $50,000-60,000 and take up to 45 days once thesearches begin. This time and cost is exclusive of review time.

Thanks, David






SHIRLEY SHERROD,

Plaintiff,

))

)))

v.



Defendants.

)

))

)

))

)

Case No. 1:11-cv-00477 (RJL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the Motion to Compel Compliance with

Subpoenas Directed to the United States Department of Agriculture and the Executive Office of

the President of the United States filed by Defendant Larry O’Connor. Having fully considered

the matter,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED, and it is

further

ORDERED that the United States Department of Agriculture and the Executive Office of

the President of the United States search for and produce all materials described in the protocols

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Dated:

The Hon. Richard J. Leon




EXHIBIT 1

PROTOCOL FOR SEARCH AND PRODUCTION OF E-MAIL RECORDS

OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1. Shirley Sherrod E-mails: For the dates July 25, 2009 through July 19, 2010, the USDA shallsearch and produce Shirley Sherrod’s e-mails (including inbox, outbox, drafts, and

attachments).

2. Headquarters (“HQ”) E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates January 1, 2009 through July

14, 2010, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, and

attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit A to this Protocol for all documentscontaining the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and

“Senator Brown”).1

3. Rural Development (“RD”) E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates July 1, 2009 through July

14, 2010, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, andattachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit B to this Protocol for all documents

containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and“Senator Brown”).

2

4. HQ and RD E-mails (Search Term List): For the dates July 15, 2010 through July 30, 2010,the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, and attachments) of

the individuals listed in Exhibits A and B to this Protocol for all documents containing the

words or phrases listed in Exhibit C to this Protocol.

5. HQ and RD E-mails (Sherrod Only): For the dates July 31, 2010 through December 31,2012, the USDA shall search and produce the e-mail (including inbox, outbox, drafts, and

attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibits A and B to this Protocol for all documents

containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “Sherrod Brown,” “Sen. Brown,” and

“Senator Brown”).

1 Counsel for Mr. O’Connor understands, based on representations from counsel for the

Department of Justice, that the emails of Rural Development employees are organized separatefrom the e-mail for USDA headquarters staff. As a result, Exhibit A lists headquarters

employees and Exhibit B lists Rural Development employees.

2 Mr. O’Connor is not requesting e-mails for Rural Development employees prior to July 1, 2009

because counsel for Mr. O’Connor understands, based on representations from DOJ counsel, that

those e-mails are on inaccessible magnetic storage tapes.




2

PROTOCOL FOR SEARCHING E-MAIL RECORDS

OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

1. For the dates July 15, 2010 through July 30, 2010, the EOP shall search and produce the e-

mail (including inbox, outbox, and attachments) of the individuals listed in Exhibit D to this

Protocol for all documents containing the word “Sherrod” (excepting references to “SherrodBrown,” “Sen. Brown,” and “Senator Brown”).




3

Exhibit A

USDA Headquarters Employees

Secretary

Tom VilsackKaren Ross

Carole Jett

Sally ClutheMalcolm Eve

Doug O’Brien

Monica WyantDavid Lazarus

Legislative Affairs

Krysta Harden

John BergeErin Hannigan

Lilia McFarlandTina May

Sarah Misailidis

Julie AllenTodd Williamson

Janice Williams

Chris Church

White House LiaisonKevin Washo

Deputy Secretary

Kathleen MerriganChad Maisel

Suzanne Palmieri

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Terry D’AddioRobin Heard

Alma C. Hobbs

Quinton RobinsonCarolyn C. Parker

Bobbi Jeanquart

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Joe Leonard

Mary McNeil

CommunicationsChris Mather

Justin DeJongCaleb Weaver

General CounselSteve Silverman

Frederick Pfaeffle

J. Michael KellyArlean Leland

Inga Bumbary-Langston

Farm Service Administration

Karis Gutter

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Pearlie S. Reed




4

Exhibit B

USDA Rural Development Employees

Rural Development

Dallas TonsagerCheryl Cook

Yeshimebet Abebe

Lisa ZainaWayne Maloney

Timothy McNeilly

Georgia Rural Development

Donnie D. Thomas

EJ Stapler

Deborah Callahan

Donna Graves




5

Exhibit C

Search Terms

approp*

“Big Government”Bishop

Breitbart

Brietbart [for misspellings]

CBC

Chambliss

CherlinCheryl

“Chris* Lu”

Clyburn

“Congressional Black Caucus”

Cook Dallas

“Denise Wilson”discriminat*

FSC

fire* (excepting w/ “forest”)firing

Fitz*

Fox“Freedom Fund”

“full copy”“GA-RD”

“GA/RD”

“GA RD”

“GA situation”“GA state director”

Gavin

“Georgia delegation”“Georgia RD”

“Georgia state director”

GibbsGreen

Hill

“James Cruey”“John Lewis”

Kingston

leave“Meet the Press”

NAACP

“New Communities”O’Connor

OAO

offer*“Office of Advocacy and Outreach”

Paige

Pearlie

Pigford

PPOPresident*

raceracis*

Rahm

“RD Director”Reed

resign*

“Rose Sanders”Saxby

Sherrod (excepting references to “SherrodBrown,” “Sen. Brown,” and “Senator

Brown”)

Shirley

Spooner*“Tea Party”

terminat*

transcrip*TJV

Towns

“Track B”transcri*

vet*

video“white farmer*”




Exhibit D

Executive Office of the President Employees

Rahm Emanuel

Robert GibbsJim Messina

Michael A. Blake

Christopher LuChris Reid

Tom Gavin

Reid CherlinValerie E. Green


Sherrod v Breitbart - O'Connor Motion to Compel Subpoena to USDA 3-3-2014

Documents

Transcript of Sherrod v Breitbart - O'Connor Motion to Compel Subpoena to USDA 3-3-2014