University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Pigford v. Glickman FH-DC-0006
Docket / Court Case No. 97-1978 ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Public Benefits / Government Services
Case Summary
On August 28, 1997, three African-American farmers, on behalf of a putative class of 641 African-American farmers, filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691, and the Administrative Procedure Act (" ... read more >
On August 28, 1997, three African-American farmers, on behalf of a putative class of 641 African-American farmers, filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and monetary relief, alleging that both the USDA and county officials to whom the USDA delegated authority discriminated against them in the provision of farm loans and other credit programs.

The plaintiffs challenged a history of discrimination in the USDA's farm lending programs and benefits programs, a history that led to a dramatic decline in the number of African-American farmers in America. The USDA administers billions of dollars in farm loans and guarantees each year. It has delegated authority to approve or deny loan and benefit applications to county committees elected by local farmers and ranchers. Under one percent of the commissioners nationwide were African American. The plaintiffs alleged that the county commissions either denied them loans because of their race or made it much more difficult for them to obtain credit than similarly situated white farmers. This problem was compounded by the fact that the USDA disbanded its Office of Civil Rights in 1983, and therefore stopped responding to African-American farmers' claims of discrimination. A USDA-sponsored investigation conducted in 1997 revealed that the USDA had a large backlog of uninvestigated complaints. Because of the USDA's policies and practices, many African Americans lost their farms to foreclosure and had to leave farming. Others were able to continue farming, but suffered the consequences of institutional discrimination. The plaintiffs brought their fair lending claims under the ECOA and alleged that the discriminatory provision of non-lending benefits, such as disaster relief benefits, violated the APA.

Ultimately, the District Court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) approved a consent decree on April 14, 1999. Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1998). The Consent Decree covered a class of all African-American farmers who farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996, applied for a farm loan or USDA benefit program, believe they were discriminated against on the basis of their race, and filed a complaint on or before July 1, 1997. Class members could either opt out of the Consent Decree or resolve individual claims pursue one of two settlement tracks. The settlement tracks allowed for out-of-court adjudication of individuals' claims. Class members could have elected to submit "substantial evidence" that they were victims of discrimination and receive a capped settlement amount under Track A of the Consent Decree. Class members with better-documented claims of discrimination could have elected to pursue Track B, which entitled them to a one-day trial in front of an arbitrator. Track B was only available to farmers with ECOA claims; it was not available to farmers who only brought claims under the APA relating to discrimination in the distribution of non-credit benefits. A court-appointed monitor (Randi Roth) oversaw the implementation of the Consent Decree.

Track A of the Consent Decree was designed for the large majority of the class. As the District Court recognized, many of the class members lacked the type of documentation of the USDA's discrimination necessary to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. This was in part due to the USDA's failure in processing discrimination complaints from farmers. Track A participants could prove that they submitted a complaint to the USDA by providing documents demonstrating that they complained directly to the USDA, to a member of Congress, to the White House, or to a government official who forwarded to complaint to the USDA. Class members who did not have such documentation could submit an affidavit from a non-family member which, based on personal knowledge, described the way in which the class member lodged a complaint.

To receive relief under Track A, class members claiming ECOA violations needed to prove that they owned or leased land or attempted to own or lease land, that they applied for USDA credit at a county office between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996, that the USDA discriminated against them by denying the loan or providing it on less favorable terms than similarly situated white farmers, and that they were harmed by the discriminatory treatment. Class members claiming discriminatory denial of benefits in violation of the APA needed to prove that they applied for a benefit program between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996 and that the request was denied or provided on less favorable terms than similarly situated white farmers received.

Track A claims were to be resolved within 110 days of the filing date. The claimant submitted the application to a facilitator, to whom the USDA could also submit information on damages and liability. The facilitator then submitted a recommendation to an arbitrator who was to issue a decision. The arbitrator's decision was final, unless a Court-appointed monitor determined a clear and manifest error occurred. Claimants that submitted successful claims received a $50,000 cash payment, forgiveness of all debt owed to the USDA stemming from a program upon which their claim was based, a tax payment equivalent to a quarter of the total debt forgives and cash payment, immediate termination of any USDA-initiated foreclosure proceedings, and one-time consideration for a priority loan.

Under Track B, claimants with more documentation could choose to litigate their claims in mini-trials. Claimants who unsuccessfully pursued a remedy under Track B were ineligible to receive Track A benefits. Class members seeking damages under Track B could have chosen to be represented by class counsel or counsel of their choice. Claimants opting in to Track B were able to conduct limited discovery, including depositions, for 180 days before a one-day mini-trial. Following the trial, in which class members had to demonstrate that they were the victim of lending discrimination and suffered damages from the discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, an arbitrator issued a decision within sixty days. Successful claimants under Track B were entitled to actual damages as well as priority consideration for loans. As with Track A, the decision of the arbitrator was final unless the Court appointed monitor found that "a clear and manifest error" had occurred and that the error was "likely to result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice."

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Judges Judith W. Rogers, David B. Sentelle, and David S. Tatel) affirmed the District Court's approval of the Consent Decree. Pigford v. Glickman, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

A number of factors led to the parties entering the Consent Decree. Shortly after the complaint was filed in 1997, a number of farmers sought to intervene in the case. Class counsel added those farmers as named plaintiffs, and allowed their attorneys to join as class counsel on the condition that they would only seek attorneys' fees through statutory fee-shifting provisions and would not bill the individual farmers or take a contingency fee. On October 9, 1998, the District Court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) certified a class of plaintiffs. Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998). On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed into law a bill waiving ECOA's statute of limitations for farmers that filed a discrimination complaint with the USDA between January 1, 1981 and July 1, 1997. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, §741. This bill mooted the USDA's statute of limitations defense. The plaintiffs filed a Seventh Amended Complaint on October 26, 1998.

In January 1999, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the Pigford case with Brewington v. Glickman, Case No. 98-1693. The allegations in the Brewington complaint tracked those in the original Pigford complaint, but were made on behalf of farmers who filed discrimination complaints with the USDA after February 21, 1997 and before July 7, 1998. The parties also jointly moved to expand the class definition to reflect the addition of the Brewington class members, and filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed Consent Decree along with a notice to class members. The court approved each request, and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 2, 1999. After hearing objections, the Court approved the final Consent Decree on April 14, 1999.

Following the entry of the consent decree, various class members continued to litigate issues specific to the Consent Decree and attorneys fees. Parties were still filing papers with the court as late as January 30, 2013. As of April 1, 2012, 15,645 out of 22,552 Track A claimants prevailed in their claims. Approximately 169 claimants elected to pursue Track B, of which 104 prevailed or reached a class settlement. The federal government paid a total of $1.05 billion to prevailing Track A and Track B claimants. A large number of farmers filed claims after the Consent Decree's deadline. The Consent Decree required claimants to submit claims by October 12, 1999. The court (Judge Paul L. Friedman) provided the arbitrator with the discretion to extend the filing deadline until September 15, 2000 for farmers who missed the deadline because of extraordinary circumstances. Farmers who could not participate in the Consent Decree are the subject of subsequent litigation, In re Black Farmer's Litigation, found in this database at FH-DC-0007.

Benjamin Clark - 02/23/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-area
Lending
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Predatory lending
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Agriculture
Plaintiff Description All African-American farmers who (1) farmed between January 1, 1983, and February 21, 1997; and (2) applied, during that time period, for participation in a federal farm program with USDA, and as a direct result of a determination by USDA in response to said application, believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race, and filed a written discrimination complaint with USDA in that time period.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Damages
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1999 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing FH-DC-0007 : In re Black Farmers' Discrimination Litigation (D.D.C.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Compensation for Black Farmers
Written: Feb. 19, 2010
By: Nancy Scola (American Prospect)
Citation: American Prospect (Feb. 19, 2010)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Pigford's Harvest
Written: Feb. 21, 2010
By: Daniel Foster (National Review)
Citation: Nat'l Review, Feb. 21, 2010
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers
Written: Aug. 15, 2012
By: Tadlock Cowen & Jody Feder (Congressional Research Service)
Citation: (Congressional Research Service, Aug. 15, 2012)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:97-cv-1978 (D.D.C.) 02/29/2016
FH-DC-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Pigford v. Glickman; Brewington v. Glickman - Opinion Approving Final Consent Decree (185 F.R.D. 82) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion Granting Class Certification 10/09/1998 (182 F.R.D. 341) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Seventh Amended Complaint 10/26/1998
FH-DC-0006-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Consent Decree 03/19/1999 (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0002.pdf | Detail
Circuit Court Opinion Affirming Order Approving Consent Decree 04/14/1999 (206 F.3d 1212)
FH-DC-0006-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 11/08/2000 (2000 WL 34292618) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0042.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/04/2001 (127 F.Supp.2d 35) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/17/2001 (182 F.Supp.2d 53) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 04/06/2001 (141 F.Supp.2d 60) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 05/15/2001 (143 F.Supp.2d 28) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 06/28/2001 (148 F.Supp.2d 31) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 11/26/2001 (173 F.Supp.2d 38) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0014.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/17/2002 (182 F.Supp.2d 50) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0041.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 05/15/2002 (201 F.Supp.2d 139) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 05/21/2002 (292 F.3d 918)
FH-DC-0006-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Order 06/27/2002 (208 F.R.D. 21) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0017.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 08/15/2002 (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0018.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 09/11/2002 (217 F.Supp.2d 95) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0039.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 09/12/2002 (221 F.Supp.2d 1) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0038.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 10/29/2002 (227 F.Supp.2d 157) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0037.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/14/2003 (239 F.Supp.2d 68) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0019.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/15/2003 (239 F.Supp.2d 73) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0020.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 04/14/2003 (215 F.R.D. 2) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0021.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 05/28/2003 (216 F.R.D. 1) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0036.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion and Order 06/02/2003 (265 F.Supp.2d 41) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0022.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 06/04/2003 (266 F.Supp.2d 105) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0023.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 03/10/2004 (307 F.Supp.2d 43) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0024.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 03/10/2004 (307 F.Supp.2d 51) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0025.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 05/14/2004 (369 F.3d 545)
FH-DC-0006-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Order 11/08/2004 (344 F.Supp.2d 149) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0026.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 01/03/2005 (225 F.R.D. 54) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0027.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 01/03/2005 (355 F.Supp.2d 148) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0028.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 05/05/2005 (2005 WL 6783452) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0035.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 07/15/2005 (416 F.3d 12)
FH-DC-0006-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Order 03/23/2006 (421 F.Supp.2d 130) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0030.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 08/07/2006 (2006 WL 2251029) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0034.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Order 12/21/2007 (2007 WL 4545851) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0033.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 02/20/2008 (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0029.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 12/19/2008 (590 F.Supp.2d 150) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0031.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order 05/12/2009 (2009 WL 1327462) (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0032.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Friedman, Paul L. (D.D.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0001 | FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-0003 | FH-DC-0006-0004 | FH-DC-0006-0010 | FH-DC-0006-0011 | FH-DC-0006-0012 | FH-DC-0006-0013 | FH-DC-0006-0014 | FH-DC-0006-0015 | FH-DC-0006-0016 | FH-DC-0006-0017 | FH-DC-0006-0018 | FH-DC-0006-0019 | FH-DC-0006-0020 | FH-DC-0006-0021 | FH-DC-0006-0022 | FH-DC-0006-0023 | FH-DC-0006-0024 | FH-DC-0006-0025 | FH-DC-0006-0026 | FH-DC-0006-0027 | FH-DC-0006-0028 | FH-DC-0006-0029 | FH-DC-0006-0030 | FH-DC-0006-0031 | FH-DC-0006-0032 | FH-DC-0006-0033 | FH-DC-0006-0034 | FH-DC-0006-0035 | FH-DC-0006-0036 | FH-DC-0006-0037 | FH-DC-0006-0038 | FH-DC-0006-0039 | FH-DC-0006-0041 | FH-DC-0006-0042
Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (D.C. Circuit)
FH-DC-0006-0008
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (D.C. Circuit, D.S.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0009
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (D.C. Circuit)
FH-DC-0006-0009
Sentelle, David Bryan (D.C. Circuit, W.D.N.C.)
FH-DC-0006-0009
Tatel, David S. (D.C. Circuit)
FH-DC-0006-0007
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bowens, Stephon J (North Carolina)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Branch, David A (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Chestnut, J. L. Jr. (Alabama)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-0005 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Clifford, John M (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Cross, Othello C. (Arkansas)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-0005 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Doan, Joshua A (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Dowdy, William Harold (North Carolina)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Fierst, David U (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Fraas, Philip L (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-0005 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Frantz, David Joseph (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Frazer, T. Roe (Mississippi)
FH-DC-0006-0005
Herman, Anthony (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Jimison, Marcus B (North Carolina)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Kagan, Barbara Kim (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Kearney, Jesse L (Arkansas)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Lyons, Mona (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Myart, James W Jr. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Ogletree, Charles J. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Pires, Alexander John Jr. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-0005 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Sanders, Rose Mary (Alabama)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Saunders, Hubbard T. IV (Mississippi)
FH-DC-0006-0005
Seymour, Richard Talbot (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Stein, Jacob A (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Toure, Faya Rose (Alabama)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Varma, Anurag (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Ware, Charles Jerome (Maryland)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Wolverton, Caroline Lewis (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bartz, Philip D. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002
Bensing, Daniel (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Bernie, Andrew Marshall (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Crowley, Megan Anne (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Edney, Marsha S. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Elliott, Stephen McCoy (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Forrest, Herbert E (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Gardner, Joshua Edward (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Goitein, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Henry, Terry Marcus (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Josephson, Matthew (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Lennon, Susan Hall (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Lin, Elbert (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Linder, Dennis G. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002
McElvain, Joel (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Moore, Tamra (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Newmark, Andrea (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Ogden, David W. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002
Quester, Amanda (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Sitcov, Michael (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Souders, David (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Straus, Julie (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Wells, Carlotta (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-0002
Other Lawyers Banks, Wyndell Oliver (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Brittenum, Dedrick Jr. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Davis, John W. (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Fagan, David N (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Henn, Emily Johnson (California)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Jordan, Robert Elijah III (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Ladd, Ford C (Virginia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Lear, Gerard Robert (Virginia)
FH-DC-0006-0005 | FH-DC-0006-9000
Martin, Dawn V (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Shoreman, John M (District of Columbia)
FH-DC-0006-9000
Sweet, Dennis C III (Mississippi)
FH-DC-0006-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -