The state of Georgia is divided into three federal judicial districts. The largst of these by volume of cases -- the Northern District of Georgia -- extends roughly from south of Newnan north to the border with the state of Tennessee and includes the Atlanta metropolitan area. This district is home to most of the state's several hundred African-American lawyers. Over the years, these lawyers have included the first African-American woman to be admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the lawyers who led the battles to desegregate the state's universities, public schools and places of public accommodation. More recently, the district's African-American lawyers have included three justices of the State Supreme Court, four Court of Appeals judges, perhaps a score of Superior Court Judges, three of Atlanta's mayors, two presidents of the Atlanta Bar Association, partners in every major Atlanta law firm, and the Chief Legal Officers for major institutions such as United Parcel Service and Pepsico, Inc.

The larger community has long recognized the depth, breadth, size and quality of the talent pool of African-American lawyers in the Northern District of Georgia. For more than 30 years, enlightened policy makers have had little difficulty making quality judicial appointments that reflected the district's racial and ethnic diversity. At the federal level, Jimmy Carter's appointment of Judge Horace Ward to the U.S. District Court was followed by Bill Clinton's appointment of Judge Clarence Cooper. Both of these judges have served with distinction, and Georgia's federal jurisprudence has benefited from their unique perspectives.

Whether this historic trend will continue, however, is unclear.

Normally, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia operates with 11 full-time judges. However, due to retirements and elevations to higher courts, the court operates with only seven full-time judges. Moreover, the retirements of Judges Ward and Cooper have created a situation in which -- for the first time in over thirty years -- the court has no full-time African-American judges. Earlier this year rumors began to surface that no African-American lawyers from the Northern District of Georgia were under consideration to fill these vacancies. This speculation was fueled when the first nominee to fill one of these positions was not African American.

This issue has been a matter of intense interest within the organized African-American Bar. Leaders of the Gate City Bar Association -- Georgia's oldest and largest organization consisting primarily of African-American attorneys -- recently met with members of the Georgia Congressional delegation to address the complete lack of racial diversity among the court's full-time judges. On June 25, 2010, four members of Congress sent a letter asking the White House Counsel to meet with Gate City Bar leaders to discuss this issue. On June 29, former Gate City Bar President Antonio Thomas appealed to Jimmy Carter and Sam Nunn, asking them to intervene.

The White House Counsel has not even acknowledged the request for a meeting with representatives of the Gate City Bar, much less respond to it. Instead, on July 14, 2010, the president announced his intention to nominate an African- American male to the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. However, this announcement did nothing to dispel the rumor that African-American lawyers from within the Northern District had been eliminated from consideration, because the president's nominee resided -- and was then sitting on a Superior Court bench -- in the Middle District of Georgia.

It is unquestionably within the president's legal authority to nominate and appoint a judge who does not reside in the district where the vacancy exists. Such an out-of-district appointment may be particularly appropriate when filling a vacancy in a district in which qualified candidates are scarce. However, the notion that there is a scarcity of qualified African-American candidates within the Northern District of Georgia is highly questionable.

In the present case in the Northern District of Georgia, the nomination of a candidate from outside of the district raises a number of troubling questions, including the following: Is this nomination intended as a slap in the face to those highly qualified African-American lawyers who live and practice in the Northern District of Georgia? Or does the nomination merely indicate that those involved in the selection process lack the competence or the diligence to find such lawyers? Or do they lack the interest in finding such lawyers?

If there is any "good news" in this story, it may lie in the fact that the process of filling these vacancies is far from over. While there are a total of four vacancies, there have only been two nominations, and the confirmation process for those two nominees has barely begun. More importantly, there remain two vacant positions for which the president has made no nomination at all. Thus, it's not too late to fill these positions in a way that acknowledges the vast talent pool of African- American lawyers in the Northern District of Georgia.

Moreover, this court has never included an African-American female judge. In light of the district's vast talent pool of Black women lawyers, the appointing authorities have a significant opportunity to break a gender-based glass ceiling on Georgia's federal bench.

They should think twice before squandering this opportunity.

Charles S. Johnson III is a partner in the Atlanta office of Holland & Knight.

John Boyd is tired.

He's tired of having meetings with members of Congress. Tired of trying to talk with the Obama administration and the president himself. Tired of hearing people say that they sympathize with his effort to fight widespread and longtime discrimination by the federal government against the nation's black farmers.

But more importantly, he's tired of attending another funeral of an elderly black farmer, knowing full well that the man and woman never had the satisfaction of seeing the federal government honor its word and fund the $1.15 billion settlement stemming from a decades-long discrimination fight.

The settlement announcement between Boyd's group, the National Black Farmers Association, and the Obama administration stipulated that the money was to be paid by March 31, but Congress went on a recess without acting on the request.

This week, in between funerals of his dying membership, Boyd visited with the officials working with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as President Obama, hoping someone would show some leadership and make the settlement a possibility.

Boyd even pushed the administration to grant the money on an emergency basis, but was told they would not support that effort, which would allow them to circumvent the congressional pay/go rules.

Yet all that has transpired is talk, but no action.

This whole battle began when a North Carolina charged that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had for decades denied service and equitable loans to African- American farmers compared with whites. The class-action lawsuit initially was settled by the Clinton administration, known as Pigford I, but not all claims met the original deadline. The second settlement, known as Pigford II, is the current case.

It's understandable that Congress doesn't want to add more to the growing U.S. deficit, but what about the enormous opportunities denied to these black farmers for years by the same federal government? These men and women weren't asking for a handout. They were using their own hands to till land, grow crops, provide a way of life to send their children to college, and grow and prosper like every American. But it was clear racism that denied them of that opportunity. Thousands of dollars were provided for white farmers to build and grow, and if they received any money at all, hundreds were thrown their way.

This generation of Americans, when confronted with the past sins of racism, often remark that slavery and Jim Crow was so long ago. But we are talking about men and women who have fought a racist system in the last 20 to 30 years. They are the victims of racism, so why should Congress continue to deprive them by not setting the money aside?

Again, had the USDA not systematically denied them the opportunities afforded to white farmers, had they treated all farmers the same way, this generation of Americans wouldn't have to be paying for the sins of the past.

But we are. And instead of ignoring their plight, Congress should say, "Enough is enough. We did wrong by them years ago. And it's time that we make it right."

No one will ever know the pain and agony of trying to eke out a living as a farmer, only to witness the loss of the land your parents and grandparents fought to keep in the family. But this continuing mistreatment of black farmers is shameful.

Every American, no matter their skin color, should demand that Congress stop playing games. How do you pay for it? Killing a few of those precious earmarks is a good start.

No more press releases. No more meetings. No more talk. All these men and women want is fairness. They didn't get it years ago, and surely deserve it now.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin. Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the new book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.

By: Mary Mitchell

I owe black farmers a real debt of gratitude. Having come North to Chicago from Mississippi as a toddler, I have only vague recollections of farming.

I remember the biting bugs, the black dirt and the white balls of cotton plants that composed the workplace for poor people who sharecropped for a living.

I'm thankful that my parents fled the white-owned farms as soon as they could scrape up a train ticket North because it meant I was spared the ordeal of dragging a cotton sack.

But the black migration also meant black farmers who were left behind in places like Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama had to do this back-breaking labor in a racist environment.

Farmers like Tim Pigford of North Carolina toughed it out.

In a 1999 profile by the Wall Street Journal, Pigford said officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture had repeatedly sabotaged his efforts by delaying approval of operating loans until well into the planting season.

A USDA county lending committee also denied Pigford ownership loans.

"I didn't need anyone coming up to me and calling me 'nigger' to know what's going on. They didn't want a black man owning more than 40 acres and a mule," Pigford told the Wall Street Journal.

In 1995, on Pigford's 20th wedding anniversary, his house was seized by federal marshals.

Pigford is one of the original plaintiffs of what is known as the black farmers lawsuit.

Despite being subjected to blatant discrimination that made it impossible for black farmers to prosper like white farmers, these farmers fought to stay on the land.

Pigford's battle started in 1984.

By the time anyone would listen, Pigford estimates he had been to Washington 120 times trying to settle his complaints.

Last week, the Obama administration announced the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by black farmers against the federal agency.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the settlement will bring to an end a "sordid chapter" at the USDA and "usher in a new era."

"There is also a major effort here within USDA to make sure we are doing what we need to do to avoid discrimination in hiring and promotion decisions," Vilsack said. "We are doing a very detailed review within USDA to reduce civil rights complaints."

The settlement affirms a 1999 agreement, known as the Pigford settlement, in which the federal government agreed to compensate black farmers for decades of discrimination.

In a written statement, President Obama urged "swift resolution" of the issue and applauded the USDA for bringing these "long-ignored claims of African-American farmers to a rightful conclusion."

Congress will have to approve the $1.25 billion settlement. Farmers who file on a so-called fast-track could receive up to $50,000. Others who file a more extensive claim could be compensated up to $250,000.

It is likely a coincidence that the settlement was announced during Black History Month.

As a U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama played a key role in getting $100 million for black farmers in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Vilsack noted that resolving the discrimination claims was a priority for both the president and for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Even so, this would be a good time to inform a younger generation about the contributions black farmers have made.

It would truly be disheartening if this settlement were to be dirtied up by Obama's critics.

This is not reparations.

But given the bitterness that has blinded some members of Congress, expect some ugly rhetoric.

Try not to take it personally. Most likely, many of the farmers who once desired to play a role in shaping America's food system have fled the fields, just as my parents did many years ago.

Today, whites operate more than 72,000 Illinois farms. The number of black farmers in Illinois is pegged at less than one in 1,000.

There's no way to make up for the harm that was done to black farmers because there is no real way to compensate people for killing their dream.

But we cannot move on until we fully address our past wrongs.

Hopefully, a portion of the money awarded for this lawsuit will allow the children of these black farmers to pursue a new dream.

The discussion about the effectiveness and relevance of the Rooney Rule -- and whether Washington and Seattle drove armored trucks through its plate-glass window -- has been entertaining and enlightening the past two weeks.

The rule, which requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate before hiring a head coach or general manager, was adopted in 2003 with the hope of seeing more African-Americans hired as head coaches. Until six years ago, there had only been five in the league's modern history. Former commissioner Paul Tagliabue was hopeful that by expanding the search, owners would come across qualified minority candidates who might have been overlooked otherwise.

Yet Washington hired Bruce Allen within 48 hours of firing GM Vinny Cerrato. It also named Mike Shanahan, who had been linked to the club for months, head coach within two days of Jim Zorn's ouster. The Seahawks were only slightly less disingenuous; they waited three whole days before hiring Pete Carroll to replace the fired Jim Mora.

But give Seattle credit: At least it waited until after Mora was gone to fulfill the Rooney Rule requirement. Washington reportedly "interviewed" assistant coach Jerry Gray before telling Zorn he would be fired at the end of the season.

Commissioner Roger Goodell told the media last weekend that both franchises complied with the Rooney Rule. I wasn't there, so I have no idea if he said it with a straight face. But even if the teams followed the rule in a letter-of-the-law sense, they clearly violated the spirit of the rule. That got me wondering: Is the Rooney Rule still relevant or necessary?

Since the rule's adoption, seven African-American head coaches have been hired: Marvin Lewis in Cincinnati, Lovie Smith in Chicago, Romeo Crennel in Cleveland, Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh, Jim Caldwell in Indianapolis, Raheem Morris in Tampa Bay, and Mike Singletary in San Francisco. They follow in the footsteps of modern-era predecessors Art Shell, Denny Green, Tony Dungy, Ray Rhodes and Herm Edwards.

"I would hope we're at the point where the Rooney Rule is not necessary," said Dungy, the former Colts coach and current NBC analyst. "But even if we are, there still some good things, some benefits that come from it. The biggest thing it has done, to me, is slow down the process and encourage people to look at a broad spectrum and interview a lot of different guys. That helps everyone. It helps the person who ended up getting the job, and it helps the person who was looking."

Dungy acknowledges there always will be franchises that clumsily side-step the rule or brazenly stiff-arm it, adding: "It's hard to legislate practice."

I am conflicted by the Rooney. The intent of it is good, but the execution is flawed. Perhaps the league could require a mandatory blackout on hirings for one week after a coach or general manager is fired. But that isn't going to stop "sham" interviews. And truthfully, if an owner knows he wants to hire an established, big-name coach, why should he have to sit through "interviews" that have no chance of changing his mind.

For the most part, the rule's biggest impact has been with organizations whose owners aren't known for spending extravagantly on head coaches, or with franchises that are in some form of financial crisis. For instance: Lewis went to the Bengals, Smith to the Bears and Tomlin to the Steelers. None of those organizations has a reputation for breaking a bank for its coaches.

Morris got his job with the Bucs, you could argue, because ownership was facing financial hardships. It still owed at least $20 million to coach Jon Gruden and the aforementioned Allen after firing them, and its outside investments, particularly in a European soccer team, reportedly was a financial drain on the Glazer family. Singletary received his break only after working half a season as the interim coach, following the firing of Mike Nolan.

Says Dungy: "Those frugal people, a lot of times, are old-time football people, so maybe the two go hand in hand. Maybe it's not that they're being frugal but thinking about football, as opposed to slash and dash. What's going to give me the best value? If I take the time to explore, maybe I will find someone who is really, really good. Maybe I could make a more informed decision. That was part of [Dan] Rooney's experience when he hired Mike [Tomlin]."

And therein lies the rub. The league can legislate as much as it wants, but franchises will always find a way to get around the rules -- particularly if Goodell isn't going to take as forceful a stance as Tagliabue did. Tagliabue once fined the Lions $200,000 for violating the Rooney Rule before hiring Steve Mariucci and threatened stiffer penalties if there were another offense.

Maybe the Redskins and the Seahawks were in compliance technically, but the Gray interview was a sham -- even if team, league and Fritz Pollard Alliance officials say otherwise. The Fritz Pollard Alliance was founded to promote the advancement of minority coaches and executives, and chairman John Wooten, whom I respect, says everything was on the up-and-up in both cases. Sorry, but there is too much circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

"I realize that the rule is not for everybody," Dungy says. "But it does help people that are truly looking and searching. If you have a closed mind and you decide before the process starts that this is the only guy I want, or I'm going to hire one of these two guys, then the rules that you have in place don't matter. But if you have an open mind and you say, 'Yeah, I really like Mike Shanahan and I think I'm going to hire him, but I'm going to interview some people and I'm going to hire the best person -- I think it's Mike Shanahan -- but I'm going to interview three or four people and figure it out,' then the rule helps you. I think it helped Dan Rooney because I don't think he went in with the thought process of hiring Mike Tomlin. Is the rule outdated? I don't know. But slowing down the process is good."

By: Daryl K. Washington

Let me start out by saying what Michael Vick did was wrong. But did he deserve to forfeit $130 million dollars, serve time in prison and upon his release be suspended for another four games? ABSOLUTELY NOT. What Martha Stewart, Rick Pitino, Michael Phelps, Marv Albert and others did was equally wrong. What's the difference? They were allowed to return to their prospective profession with plenty of support from their peers, fans and the Media without the forfeiture of millions of dollars. Michael Phelps recently received the ESPY's Male Athlete of the Year despite being caught with drugs on TAPE.

I'm somewhat confused why we only heard from individuals like Terrell Owens and a few of Vick's former Atlanta teammates during Vick's attempted return to the NFL. It often amazes me how so many athletes who have had to struggle to get to the point they are sit so idle as many of our Black Athletes are unfairly convicted and punished by the media, fans, team owners, criminal justice system and now the new NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell.

Is it because they are afraid that if they took a stance against the many injustices that occur each and every day they would sacrifice the millions they make each year? Or, have the owners prohibited them from taking a political stance? Whatever the reason, the time is now for them to be a supporter of something besides self. I'm so happy that Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown and others were willing to sacrifice it all for the betterment of our society. Every Black Athlete should follow the lead of Tony Dungy as he stands side by side with Michael Vick upon his return to work.

Each day, I receive letters from individuals who have been victimized by the criminal justice system. So many of these individuals are innocent African Americans males who don't have the platform and resources to get their stories out. They would give the coats of their backs to cheer for one of the successful athletes but would our Black athletes do the same for them? Each and every day the cameras are placed into the face of so many influential and successful African American athletes yet I can count the times they've seized that moment to sacrifice the attention that is placed on them to take a stance against racial injustices. So many of our African American kids idolize these athletes yet I've not seen a public service announcement from our athletes to stop the violence in cities like Chicago and New Orleans.

I'm the first to say that we have many athletes who give back to the communities on a daily basis. However, money, although great, is not the solution to every problem. We need our African American athletes to demand that our athletes are not unfairly punished for simply making a mistake. We need our athletes to take a stance against the racial injustices occurring each day. There is no one in this world who can make me believe Donte' Stallworth was intentionally trying to kill 59-year-old crane operator Mario Reyes the morning of March 14 in Miami. In fact, the criminal justice system did not think so as reflected in his sentence. However, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell decided Donte’ Stallworth’s football punishment should last much longer than his 24 days in jail and cost him much more than the financial settlement he reached with the family. Stallworth was suspended without pay Thursday for the entire season. He is barred from team activities until he is reinstated after the Super Bowl. Despite that, Stallworth had the class to make the following statement: “Regardless of the length of my suspension, I will carry the burden of Mr. Reyes’ death for the rest of my life,” Stallworth said. “I urge NFL fans not to judge NFL players or me based on my tragic lapse in judgment. I am a good person who did a bad thing. I will use the period of my suspension to reflect, fulfill my obligations, and use this experience to make a positive impact on the lives of those who look up to NFL players.”

What happened to Donte' Stallworth and Michael Vick could happen to anyone. When Kobe Bryant was falsely accused of raping a lady in Colorado we had to listen to this on talk radio and on the news each and every day until the matter was settled. We heard about it so much until most people started to believe it. Some even stated that he should be banned from basketball. He was booed in every city he played in and treated poorly by the media, female advocacy groups and did not receive much support in the media from his peers. However, just recently a woman filed a similar lawsuit accusing Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of rape. Despite the seriousness of the charges, this is what was said about the incident: The Steelers and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said they were looking into the allegations against Roethlisberger. Goodell went on to say that "I don't know enough of the details, but it's a civil lawsuit. It's something that we obviously will look into."

Not one mention of suspension pending the investigations of the serious allegations. I have not seen one female advocacy group come forward protesting the commissioner's decision to allow Roethlisberger to play despite these serious allegations. This is what we've come to, the rights of ladies, when they are allegedly violated by non African American athletes, are not as important as the rights of dogs. I'm a huge supporter of Roethlisberger and believe he should not be prosecuted in the media for something he may have not done; however, the same support that is given to white athletes should be given to black athletes who are largely responsible for the billions of dollars generated in our economy each year.

The fans and media call athletes and entertainers like Terrell Owens and Snoop Dogg selfish and strange. I say thanks to the two of them for having the courage to support others during their struggles. Never judge someone because you can one day be in a similar position that Vick was in. I will say to our Black athletes who fail to take a stance against the racial injustices to remember the great lyrics written by the late Michael Jackson in his song entitled "Man in the Mirror." Michael stated in the song that "I'm gonna make a change, for once in my life. It's gonna feel real good, gonna make a difference Gonna make it right... "As I, turn up the collar on my favorite winter coat, This wind is blowin' my mind. I see the kids in the street, with not enough to eat. Who am I, to be blind? Pretending not to see their needs. A summer's disregard, a broken bottle top And a one man's soul. They follow each other on the wind ya' know 'Cause they got nowhere to go. That's why I want you to know "I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking him to change his ways."

Daryl K. Washington is an attorney specializing in complex Commercial Litigation, Business Transactions and Sports and Entertainment Law. Daryl utilizes his experience as a former certified contract advisor with the National Football League to serve as a consultant to athletes in their selection of an agent to represent them in contract negotiations. If you have any questions, you can email Daryl at dwashington@dwashlawfirm.com or call him at 214-880-4883.

By: Daryl K. Washington

Now that your season is over, you’re probably wondering, “how do I select the right agent to represent me and not make the mistake of a lifetime?” This is a question going through the minds of hundreds of college seniors and underclassmen as they prepare for the 2009 NFL Draft. My answer to the question remains the same; go with your gut feelings! Go with someone you can trust. Unfortunately, this is not how it often happens. There are many things unrelated to contract negotiations that play a role in an individual being influenced to sign with a particular agent.

As a former agent, the reasons I’ve heard that an athlete did not sign with an agent are mind boggling. The stories of agents paying off a player’s family, paying for unnecessary gadgets, arranging unnecessary lines of credit, paying for training, purchasing luxury items to interfering with or risking a player’s collegiate eligibility all come to mind. What I do know is that if someone attempts to buy you, he will sell you just as fast. Section 3B(2) of the Regulations governing Contract Advisors (the “Regulations”) states in its pertinent part that an agent is prohibited from providing or offering money or any other thing of value to any player or prospective player to induce or encourage that player to utilize his/her services.

A red light should immediately go off in your head if someone offers you money or other perks to work for you. To put it in proper perspective, that’s the equivalent of me paying my employer to work for them. It does not make any sense. As a future professional athlete, your primary concern is that you sign with an agent who is knowledgeable, has integrity, character, and the ability to gain your trust and who will work in your best interest. Do not sign with an agent because he/she represents ten first rounders, your teammates, offers you the most money or works for a National Firm. Sign with someone you have a connection with. In all likelihood, if you sign with someone who represents many athletes, you will not get the attention you require and deserve. You will be treated like a number.

Always remember, if an agent is willing to break a rule to sign you, he will steal from you. Nothing is free; An agent is in the game to make money! So if an agent fronts you money and says you do not have to pay him back, you’ve now forced that agent to lie and cheat you. It happens all so often, agents getting a fee from someone else without disclosing the fact to you. Some agents may think it’s perfectly okay, but it’s not. If you are introduced to someone by a Contract Advisor, make sure you inquire if the Advisor is being paid a fee. Section 3(B)(20) of the Regulations prohibits an agent from failing to disclose in writing to any player represented by a Contract Advisor any fee paid or received by Contract Advisor to or from a third party in return for providing service to that player.

In closing, an agent will tell you what you want to hear to sign you. You do not need that. You need someone who will be honest and will look out for you. Your goal is to have financial independence during and after your career is over so if you choose to go fishing everyday, you can. Good luck with your selection process.


Daryl K. Washington is an attorney specializing in complex Commercial Litigation and Business Transactions. He also represents coaches in NCAA investigations and compliance matters. In addition, Daryl also utilizes his experience as a former certified contract advisor with the National Football League to serve as a consultant to athletes in their selection of an agent to represent them in contract negotiations. If you have any questions, you can email Daryl at dkwashlaw@aol.com or call him at 214-880-4883.

While listening to our former President George W. Bush, Jr. give one of his last speeches, the subject of Hurricane Katrina was revisited. Former President Bush had the audacity to state live on national television that he felt the Government’s rescue efforts in New Orleans were adequate. He bragged about how 30,000 people were rescued from the roofs of flooded homes but ignored the fact that thousands lost their lives and the others fortunate to survive the devastation were forced to leave their homes and have not been provided with adequate resources to return to rebuild.

He failed to mention how individuals were left on bridges and in the Superdome for days without the bare necessities. He failed to mention how unarmed African Americans were killed as they attempted to cross a bridge to safer grounds. I could not help but wonder how could someone stand in front of the people of this great country and make such an insulting statement.

Each year I pick an exciting destination to visit on my birthday. My destination this year was New Orleans (pronounced “Nawlins”). The moment I stepped off the plane a chill came over my body. The New Orleans I once knew was no longer the same. During my visit to the 7th, 8th, and 9th wards, I immediately discovered that there was absolutely zero movement to rebuild the communities. I could not hold back my sorrow as I drove through the lifeless communities with Darren Boykins, a successful business owner who is recovering from the loss of everything.

It’s been almost four years since the deadly hurricane destroyed parts of the city primarily occupied by African Americans; yet, there is not much evidence that the neighborhoods once filled with life will ever be rebuilt. There are homes covered by weeds and debris, empty lots once occupied by homes, trailers jammed on lots, memorials erected by former homeowners honoring people who died during the storm, signs pleading for help to rebuild their homes and a newly built levee which I do not feel was adequately constructed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.

What ever happened to the millions of dollars that George W. Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton and all the other celebrities and generous people raised for the citizens of New Orleans? Why was the money never accounted for or distibuted? I've interviewed hundreds of people from New Orleans who all state the same thing, they have yet to receive a single dime from the millions of dollars raised to help them rebuild and recover from the disaster.

I cannot imagine why an investigation has not been launched to determine what happened to the millions of dollars raised for the citizens of New Orleans. Instead, the Government was and have been swift to launch investigations into claims of fraud against the citizens of New Orleans for the pennies distributed to them but has yet made an effort to locate and distribute the millions that was raised for them. Was the investigation designed to distract and cause people not to have sympathy for the thousands of people pleading for our help?

As I continue to travel around New Orleans, I could not imagine how someone could be forced to live in the chemical infested trailers that the government allegedly provided for temporary housing until the homes were rebuilt. The kitchen, living room and master bedroom are basically in the same room.

I’m being brutally honest when I say people of New Orleans were treated like second class citizens. The sad fact remains that they are still being treated that way. Families have been broken up, destroyed and forced to leave their city just as slaves were forced to leave under the disguise that they would have a better life. Although this may be true to a certain extent, the fact remains that they were forced to leave and the same efforts have not been made to rebuild the lost communities and schools as it was to rebuild the New Orleans Convention Center, the Superdome and other areas near or surrounding Bourbon Street.

The questions remain: (1) do the powers to be really want the tens of thousands of African American forced to leave to return? (2) will the millions of dollars raised ever be distributed to the citizens of New Orleans? (3) will the destroyed neighborhoods in the 7th, 8th and 9th Wards be rebuilt? (4) will they make it affordable for people to return to New Orleans? (5) will efforts be made to revitalize and beautify the 7th, 8th, and 9th Wards? Actions to date indicate that this will not happen.

The government can allocate billons of dollars to bailout the banking and automotive industries so that they can maintain status quo, executives can receive their bonuses and homeowners can save their homes, yet, the same efforts cannot and will not be made to get people’s lives back on track in New Orleans. There are some African Americans forced to live below the poverty level which undoubtedly has a connection to the high crime rate in New Orleans.

We must demand, as we move into a new era, that an accounting be performed immediately so that all the funds raised for the victims of Hurricane Katrina are accounted for and that each family be allocated an amount sufficient to rebuild their homes and their lives. At a minimum, mortgage payments should be suspended until the homes are rebuilt. We should demand that this is done immediately so that the New Orleans I/(we) once knew is not taken away from those not able to defend themselves.

No one asked for this to happen. Do not let the media's negative portrayal of New Orleans harden your hearts. There is no place in this country where you will meet people so wonderful and hospitable. Spend some time in New Orleans besides the Essence Festival weekend or the Bayou Classic weekend and you will feel the hurt I felt. We have the power to bring about a change. Use it.

Don’t forget about New Orleans and the thousands impacted. The problems still exist. Let's not let their heritage and property be taken away from them. Join me in this journey to solve this problem.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daryl K. Washington.

By Afi C. Patterson

A friend called me last night angry, and desperate. Two weeks prior, he was at track practice with his seven year old son. The two of them were running 50 meter sprints when his son’s mother stormed onto the track, drug the child to the car and sped away, without a word to him. My friend and his son’s mother (an ex-girlfriend) had gotten into a bitter argument concerning his new girlfriend earlier that day; she obviously wasn’t very happy about the idea. That day on the track was the last time he had seen his son and the mother would not return any of his phone calls. Frustrated, my friend called me to get advice before he executed an elaborate scheme to “retrieve” his son while he was playing outside of his grandmother’s home. According to his logic, the child could be in the custody of either parent since there was no judicial decree in place regarding custody of the child.

This scenario is not unusual; rather it is an act that is played out in many non-traditional families across the country. When major disputes between parents arise, children are often caught in the middle. With that said, I strongly advised my friend against picking up his child without the mother’s consent, suggested he call his local office of Child and Family Services and referred him to a family law attorney.

With the decline in marriages, many children are born outside of wedlock; and depending on the state you live in, a father may or may not have equal custody or parental rights to a child irrespective of the fact that he has signed the child’s birth certificate or publicly acknowledged the child as his own. Therefore picking up one’s biological child without the other parent’s knowledge or consent will not only cause panic and alarm but it may very well be illegal. Such an act may subject a parent to serious legal ramifications and a justifiable limitation on visitation rights with their child.

After the birth of a child or the failure of a relationship, parents rarely seek to establish custody arrangements. This failure occurs for many reasons. Sometimes it is due to a fear of losing time with the child, a lack of financial resources or knowledge of the law, or just a desire to keep the relationship boat afloat.

Fortunately, a fear of loosing access to or time with the child is just as ancient as the 20th century. Gone are the days of courts capriciously granting the mother sole custody, hefty child support payments, and every other weekend visitation to fathers. Increasingly, courts have been favoring joint physical custody; recognizing the benefit and stability that dual parenting provides. This however requires cooperation and communication between the parents.

If two parents get along, they may be able to outline a custody agreement in writing and ask the court to enter a judgment in favor of the agreement. That way, neither parent has the ability to use a child as a weapon during the rocky points of the relationship. The court may honor the agreement, always taking into account, the “Best Interest of the Child”.

In most states, the standard for granting child custody is the “Best Interest of the Child”. This standard reviews many factors to determine who the best caretaker for the child is. Some factors include: 1.) the relationship of the child with the parents, 2.) the stability of the proposed living arrangements, and 3.) the mental and physical health of the child and the parents.

A custody agreement really benefits both parents and reduces the chances of major conflict. An agreement can outline visitation, education, vacation times, who makes major decisions versus day-to-day decisions, extra curricular activities, and religious up-brining. Custody agreements help avoid lonely Christmases, calling the authorities when a parent takes a child out of state, disputes over birthdays or holidays, and disputes when a parent decides to re-locate.

If you would like to seek a custody decree but you don’t believe you have the financial resources that’s okay as well. There are a number of child welfare agencies and legal service establishments in each state that can provide you with advice regarding the best approach free of charge. For more information, a parent should call their local Clerk of Court, Department of Child or Family Services, or your local free legal services clinic.

Afi C. Patterson is an attorney with Adams and Reese LLP located in Baton Rouge, La.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Afi C. Patterson.