Blogroll

Weekend Edition: 10-2

Foolishness of the Week

Nonbookish Linkage

Bookish Linkage


[B]y the time whatever is being hyped actually happens, most people have used up all the fucks they could possibly give about it.

Emma Newman, After Atlas

Loco Lawsuits: Beyoncé, Part 1 – She’s a CIA lackey

Despite the money, it’s tough being a world-famous celebrity. There’s the paparazzi, the tabloids, and the stalkers. Plus, you become a target for some of the oddest lawsuits. Just ask Beyoncé, who’s been the subject of bizarre allegations.

For example, in October 2012 Naomi Riches, “d/b/a Naomi Leatherman,” sued Beyoncé and her husband Jay-Z in federal court in Texas for “1,000,000,000 Billion dollars” for supposedly violating her civil rights. Regardless of whether Riches meant $1 billion or $1 quintillion, she claimed Beyoncé and Jay-Z were guilty of inflicting emotional and mental distress — and copyright infringement.

She said the singers used a “Stimoceiver” implanted in her brain when she was a toddler to take her thoughts and turn them into music. “They have intentionally put me through severe emotional and pscyhological [sic] distress to ensure music can be made from my thoughts.” Beyoncé and Jay-Z, of course, “don’t want anyone to know they are working in cahoots wiht the CIA in order to produce mass music for corporations.”

Moreover, the singers conspired with then-President Barack Obama. Riches said she was “being offered as an Illuminati sacrifice.” Additionally, the trio continually monitored her to “shock me remotely into forced sexual acts.” As “proof,” she attached a copy of an ultrasound of her “failing” kidney (doctors said there was nothing wrong with her). On it, she wrote, “I demand a new kidney. How can I live to take care of my child when Beyonce & JayZ [sic]want me to die?”

The day after it was filed, a federal magistrate recommended dismissing the lawsuit because the allegations were “fanciful and delusional.” The magistrate also noted the claims were similar to earlier lawsuits filed by Jonathan Lee Riches, the G.O.A.T. of frivolous lawsuits. It met the same outcome as Jonathan’s. The federal district judge adopted the recommendations and dismissed the lawsuit.

At least two other lawsuits identify Naomi and Jonathan as husband and wife. But several sources suggest Naomi is just another avatar of Jonathan Riches. Naomi’s court filings may support that:

  • Twelve days before suing Beyoncé, Naomi Leatherman, “d/b/a Naomi Riches,” made similar allegations against President Obama in a federal court lawsuit in Delaware that sought damages and treatment for her kidney.
  • Just three days before suing Beyoncé, Riches d/b/a Leatherman she sued Casey Anthony, acquitted three months earlier in the 2008 death of her daughter, in federal court in Florida. Riches alleged Anthony was “an Illuminati actress who was [sic] used the summers of 2009-2011 to mock and harass my current circumstances.”
  • One day before suing Beyoncé, Leatherman d/b/a Riches filed what was essentially the Delaware suit against Obama in federal court in Pennsylvania.

It’s no surprise that all these pro se lawsuits were dismissed.

But Riches wasn’t the only person to make extraordinary claims against Beyoncé. I’ll look at another in the next Loco Lawsuits.


i will file a lawsuit against the dictionaries first thing tomorrow morning. we’re going to tear merriam a new asshole and throw webster inside of it.

“Gideon,” Will Grayson, Will Grayson, John Green and David Levithan

The politics of Thomas Jefferson’s donation to the Library of Congress

In 1800, the seat of the U.S. government relocated to the District of Columbia. Among final preparations for the move, in April 1800, Congress appropriated funds for what would become the Library of Congress. With the U.S. Capitol as its home, the library’s first books arrived the following year. But in August 1814, the library was destroyed when the British burned the Capitol during the War of 1812.

Thomas Jefferson, a noted bibliophile, took a keen interest in the Library of Congress. During his presidency (1801-1809), he appointed the first two Librarians of Congress and personally recommended books for it. So, upon hearing of its destruction, the retired Jefferson stepped up. Knowing the financial difficulties of the nation (and facing his own), in a September 21, 1814, letter he offered to help “recommence” the library by selling his extensive personal library at whatever valuation set by appraisers selected by Congress on such payment terms Congress decided.

“I have been fifty years making it, and have spared no pains, opportunity or expense, to make it what it now is,” Jefferson wrote of his library. Its range and breadth were vast, he said. “There is in fact no subject to which a member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.” There was one condition, however. Jefferson said his library must be purchased in its entirety or not at all.

On October 10, the U.S. Senate approved, without debate, a resolution authorizing the Joint Library Committee to enter into negotiations to buy Jefferson’s library. However, politics began to crop up when the House of Representatives took up the resolution on October 17. Three members of the Federalist Party objected to the cost and nature of the books. Too many, they said, were in foreign languages, of “too philosophical a character, and some otherwise objectionable.”

Thomas Jefferson lithograph, circa 1825

At the time, the Federalists were in the minority in both houses. The Democratic-Republican party, co-founded by Jefferson, outnumbered its opposition 25-10 in the Senate and 115-67 in the House. Unsurprisingly, the resolution was approved on October 19, although with an amendment requiring Congressional approval of the final contract.

After the Senate agreed to the amendment, a Georgetown bookseller appraised them. He valued the 6,487 books at $23,950, around $370,000 today. Jefferson agreed to the valuation, even though he’d spent far more than that. Jefferson later received a letter from William Thornton, the Superintendent of Patents, saying he’d advised Congress to offer $50,000. Thornton said the selection of books was such that they “were not to be obtained but at very great trouble, great expense, great risk, & many of them not to be had at all.”

A bill to buy the library for $23,950 was introduced in the Senate on November 28 and approved on December 3. The House didn’t take up the bill until January 26, 1815, and, once again, partisan politics flared. Cyrus King, a Federalist elected out of Massachusetts, led the attack on the bill.

The Hartford Courant, considered a Federalist newspaper, reported that King objected because Jefferson’s library contained “many books of an irreligious and immoral tendency,” as well as works by “French infidel philosophers” who’d “caused” the French revolution. Moreover, King argued, the House must

prevent a general dissemination of this infidel philosophy, and of the principles of a man, who had inflicted greater and deeper injuries upon our country, than any other person, except [President James] Madison, ever did upon any country.

He then proposed an amendment requiring the Library Committee to remove “all books of an atheistical, irreligious, and immoral tendency” and return them to Jefferson.

Adam Seybert, a Democratic-Republican from Pennsylvania and a member of the Joint Library Committee, said he was not willing or able to make such choices and proposed King be made “sole inquisitor,” according to the Courant. King “immediately intimated” that he would do so “with great pleasure.”

Federalist John Hulbert of Massachusetts not only supported the bill but, tongue-in-cheek or not, suggested burning rather than returning the books. He said that would better “prevent the contagion that which might spread from them,” the Courant reported. King said he’d initially intended to do so but decided returning the books wouldn’t cause harm because Jefferson and his friends were protected “by their own depravity.”

The Annals of Congress, the era’s version of the Congressional Record but compiled years later “from authentic materials,” went into little detail. It said that while the debate was lengthy and “afforded much amusement to the auditors, [it] would not interest the feelings or judgment of any reader.” King, in fact, withdrew the motion, saying he did so in deference to his friends in the House and the time the debate was taking. The House then passed the bill, albeit on an 81-71 vote, meaning 30 percent of the Democratic-Republicans defected. President Madison signed it into law on January 30

Beginning in the middle of April, the books were packaged, protected, and sealed in the pine bookcases they inhabited at Monticello. Ten wagons made the week-long journey, with the last one departing May 8. When finally unpacked, there were more than 6,500 books, more than doubling what the Library of Congress held in 1814.

Jefferson insisted he not be paid until the books were delivered and didn’t request payment for the additional books. He received Treasury notes totaling $23,950. Jefferson was struggling with sizable debt at the time. He used more than $15,000 of the proceeds to pay off two large loans. He reportedly spent some of the balance on books. On June 15, 1815, he wrote John Adams that he was “reprocuring [sic] some part of the literary treasures” sold to Congress.” The reason? “I cannot live without books.”

Unfortunately, a fire in the Capitol building on Christmas Eve 1851 destroyed nearly two-thirds of the books Congress bought from Jefferson. While 2,465 volumes remained, in 1998 the Library of Congress began reconstructing the original Jefferson library. Less than 300 books still need to be replaced.


I have often thought that nothing would do more extensive good at small expense than the establishment of a small circulating library in every county, to consist of a few well-chosen books, to be lent to the people of the country under regulations as would secure their safe return in due time.

Thomas Jefferson letter to John Wyche, May 19, 1809

(Originally posted at History of Yesterday)

Weekend Edition: 9-25

Legal Advice of the Week

  • “Here’s a tip: if you’ve been doing something in court, and it makes the judge so mad she has to take a five-minute recess to cool off, you should stop doing that thing.”

Nonbookish Linkage

  • I remain continually appalled by the number of lunatics in our country

Bookish Linkage


[N]o one was interested in the facts. They preferred the invention because this invention expressed and corroborated their hates and fears so perfectly.

James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son

Weekend Edition: 9-18

Irony of the Week

Nonbookish Linkage

Bookish Linkage

  • For the second year in a row, the Festival of Books will be entirely online

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.

Daniel Boorstin, The Washington Post (Jan. 24, 1989)