-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/march/lp_library.htm
}}}>Begin
Future literary figures or executors should think carefully before bequeathing or
donating material to the Library of Congress. Its seeming willingness to litigate
against an unwary donor is frightening.
Peikoff's Experience with the Library of Congress
By Leonard Peikoff (Posted March 14, 2002)
[CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] 1. Some time in the 1960s, I believe, the Library of
Congress invited Ayn Rand to will the manuscripts of her novels to them. She replied
that she was happy to do so. Subsequently, they sent her a form to fill out, in order
to
make her intention legally binding upon her death. She refused to fill it out, then or
later, expressing various doubts about the Library, which she had since come to
entertain. When she died in 1982, she willed all of her papers to me, having told me
to "do with them whatever you want."
2. For some years thereafter, like Ayn, I was conflicted about what to do and kept
postponing my decision. Influenced by her initial positive reaction, I wrote the
Library,
in answer to their persistent inquiries, that I would donate the papers "in due
course."
But influenced also by her later negative reaction and indecision, I told the Library
at
the same time that I could not commit to any specific date. Then in the mid-'80s
another eager (and meritorious) party arose: the Ayn Rand Institute Archives
(established after Ayn Rand's death). Also, I had become aware of the great sum of
money I could be paid if I sold the manuscripts to avid fans of Miss Rand.
But then, in July 1991, while hospitalized with a heart attack, it became clear that I
must act immediately. I asked my assistant to box up all of the manuscripts,
typescripts, and galleys of Miss Rand's four novels and send them to the Library of
Congress. I did this without any moral or legal obligation, and foregoing any financial
return, simply because, sick in bed, I had to decide something, and Ayn Rand had
once, albeit fleetingly, approved such a course. Plus: I had told the Library, even if
vaguely, that I would do it at some point, and now, it appeared, I should act
accordingly. There was no longer time for hesitation or doubts.
I asked my assistant, however, to keep for me two pages from The Fountainhead
manuscript, the first and last pages. Of all Miss Rand's works, The Fountainhead had
the greatest personal meaning to me, and I wished to keep a small remnant of it for
myself, or at least for my Estate. To ensure that the Library had a complete copy,
however, I sent photocopies of these two pages along with the manuscript. It
seemed obvious at the time that the Library would have no objection, since its sole
official function in regard to the manuscript—to serve the needs of scholars—was in
no way impaired.
In addition, the expert hired by Ayn Rand's Estate went to the Library in Washington
at the time to appraise the manuscript for tax purposes, and told the Library about
the two photocopied pages. The Library, he states, did not care about this omission
and, he adds, the official with whom he dealt made disparaging remarks about Ayn
Rand as a writer.
Nevertheless, in retrospect, this was my first error: I did not myself and in writing
tell
the Library that I had taken two pages out of the eleven cartons I sent; my assistant
simply described the materials as "the complete manuscripts of Ayn Rand's novels."
The value of this gift at the time was estimated at slightly under $1 million; today, I
understand, that value is very substantially increased. In due course, I received an
official statement from the Library informing me that they had gone through and
catalogued all the material I sent, and that everything was in order and complete.
After returning from the hospital, I had the two pages mounted in a museum-quality
frame, which I hung on a wall in my home.
3. On August 16, 1998, the Los Angeles Times Magazine published a largely (not
wholly) accurate article on me. When the reporter, visiting my home, asked about the
framed pages, I replied, with what I thought was a twinkle in my eye, that I had
"stolen" them from the Library of Congress. To me, at the time, this was a
preposterous joke (although, as I have since learned, it was a fatal one). If I had
believed that "stealing" was really applicable, I would hardly have announced it to the
press. In my mind, the situation was parallel to the following: Motivated by
generosity,
I give a man an envelope marked as containing a $1 million gift to him. In fact, there
is only $999,998.00 in it. Someone then asks me about the missing $2, and I answer
that "I stole it from him." Is this not obviously a facetious response? Can it
conceivably be taken as the confession of a crime?
4. The Library of Congress eventually learned about the article, and wrote me angrily,
demanding the return of "U.S. Government property." I was astonished, for reasons
given above, to learn that the Library even cared about such an issue; plus, I
believed it was clear that since I had not given these pages to the Government, they
were still morally and legally mine. A lengthy correspondence between my attorney
and the Library, however, did nothing to weaken their resolve. They proceeded to
give the case to the Department of Justice, for formal proceedings against me.
5. In October 2000, I received a complaint from the Justice Department, charging me
with fraudulent possession of Government property and with admitting to this
misdeed publicly. I was threatened—if I did not return the two pages—with a lawsuit
in which the Government would demand to recover not only the two pages, but also
the total costs and damages which the Library had suffered because of my
withholding of these pages. The Department of Justice put these costs and damages
at $1.1 million (!). This figure speaks for itself; it was, in my opinion, an obvious
attempt to frighten me into submission.
I was prepared to fight the case in the courts, confident of the rightness of my
cause—until my attorney, lead litigator in a prominent New York intellectual property
firm, did some research. Her verdict: I would "probably" win the case in court, but
this
outcome was "far from certain" given the state of the law in this area, and the
different interpretations of it possible from different judges.
Among the legal problems she unearthed—I speak here with my layman's
understanding—is the fact that there is a tendency now for the courts to enforce gifts,
notwithstanding the fact that a promise is not enforceable. Apparently, if a charity
can
show that it relied on the promise of a gift—even if the donor expects nothing in
return and there is therefore no contract involved—courts tend to enforce the
promise under a theory called "promissory estoppel." In exchange for the papers I
donated, the argument goes, the Library had spent time and money it would not
otherwise have spent: it had made arrangements to preserve the papers and make
them available for scholarly purposes. Hence, if my gift is not exactly as I described
it, if eleven cartons of material are short by two pages, the Library has relied on my
promise "to its detriment." Therefore, I am liable, even though my gift was a
unilateral
act with no strings attached and no quid pro quo (else why did it merit a tax
deduction?).
This legal doctrine seems to me to imply, for example, that, if a man gives some
charity an amount of money which he describes as 5% of his income for the year,
and it then comes out that it was only 4%, the charity can then devise a statement of
the losses or detriment it has suffered and of the benefits the donor received for his
money "in exchange," and then go ahead and sue on the theory of promissory
estoppel.
And there was a second legal issue involved which was even more mystifying to me.
I knew that the statute of limitations requires that a person take action within a
certain time period to rectify a wrong, or else he loses the right to sue. It seemed to
me, and my lawyer agreed, that if the Government wanted to sue me, it could and
should have done so long before now. I did nothing to hide what I had done which
would justify the Library's delay. But it turns out that the rules for ordinary
citizens do
not necessarily apply to the Government. There is no statute of limitations on the
Government's right to take legal action to recover "its property." Again, I was
advised,
how a court would rule on this issue was unpredictable.
6. Given these (and other such) legal viewpoints now in the ascendant, I
decided—regretfully and after substantial correspondence with a militant, and in my
opinion, hostile Department of Justice attorney—that I had no choice but to back
down and give in. I did so because I was advised that litigation would be a prolonged
and extremely costly process—the Department of Justice having unlimited time to
pursue the case through the court system, and unlimited sums to do so at its
disposal. I, on the other hand, am 68 and a heart patient, and could not accept the
prospect of being further weakened physically by the stress, and perhaps even
bankrupted in a fight against what is now, it seems, a virtually omnipotent
Government in many areas. I capitulated, not out of any free choice or voluntary
agreement, but in essence because I was forced to do so by ominous Government
threats. This was the payment I received from the Library of Congress for my gift.
7. I signed the capitulation documents, but told the Library that I would not cooperate
any further, and that to obtain the pages, they must come and take them from me.
On Tuesday, January 15th, a month ago, a Senior Conservator from the Library of
Congress flew to California from Washington, entered my home, removed the picture
from the wall, cut the pages out of the framed mat, and took them away. (The whole
procedure was recorded on video by a friend.)
There was nothing I could do; I was forced to stand by helpless, and to allow my
home to be invaded and my property expropriated under orders from the Library of
Congress. "Invasion" and "expropriation" are my words; I know of none more
accurate to describe this case.
In my opinion, given the above, future literary figures or executors should think
carefully before bequeathing or donating material to the Library of Congress. Its
seeming willingness to litigate against an unwary donor is frightening. At the very
least, given today's law, it behooves any donor to devise an airtight legal contract
first, in an effort—possibly even so doomed to failure—to protect himself or his
Estate from further demands made, perhaps years or even decades later, by a
grasping or hostile official.
I myself, of course, will never offer further papers, whether Ayn Rand's or my own, to
the Library of Congress—partly out of an abiding sense of personal loss, and partly
out of plain fear of the next penalty that might be visited on me in payment for any
such bequest.
Related Links:
March 13, 2002
Selected Letters in Support of my Stand
with additional comments by Leonard Peikoff
Visit Dr. Peikoff's website at http:// www.peikoff.com/
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
