Craig Biddle, with help from Sidney Gunst and the Ayn Rand Institute, founded The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal, in 2006. Carl Barney, then on the board of ARI, donated money to the enterprise. Yaron Brook, head of ARI, was on the journal’s editorial staff and people at ARI contributed some of its content. Biddle spoke at ARI events and did yeoman service insinuating that ARI had opposed the Iraq War instead of assiduously promoting it. In 2010 ARI severed relations with Biddle and TOS due to his public criticism of Leonard Peikoff concerning the McCaskey Affair. In November 2019 Barney made Biddle executive director of his Prometheus Foundation (a position he held for five years). The same year, Biddle began setting up Objective Standard Institute, a nonprofit organization whose mission statement is similar to ARI’s, with the help of Carl Barney who then made ongoing donations. Biddle lives in Laguna Hills, California.

Carl Barney is a businessman of sorts who eventually accumulated several hundred million dollars. He began acquiring wealth in the late 1960s by running Church of Scientology franchises, or “missions,” until L. Ron Hubbard confiscated them in 1979. Then, or partly overlapping, by investing in real estate. Finally, and most lucratively, by running several trade school colleges that profited from the federal guaranteed student loan program. That last career ended in 2022 when the U.S. Department of Education, following an investigation, denied federal loans to students attending his schools. He donated to the Ayn Rand Institute from its beginning in 1985. ARI placed him on its board of directors in 1995. He stopped donating to ARI in mid-2018 and the board voted to remove him early the following year. As stated above, he helped launch Craig Biddle’s Objective Standard Institute and afterwards donated to it regularly. Barney lives in Laguna Beach, California.

And there things stood, the two men – Barney in Laguna Beach and Biddle in Laguna Hills – apparently getting along well promoting Objective Standard Institute. But Barney eventually became unhappy with Biddle, then suddenly very unhappy. In October 2025 he demanded that Biddle have OSI relinquish the unspent money he had donated, plus interest, in total some nine million dollars. Biddle refused.  The two men are now suing each other in California Superior Court of Orange County. Biddle alleges breach of contract and wants the court to affirm that OSI has a right to keep Barney’s unspent donations plus accumulated interest – all in all some 9 million dollars. Barney alleges fraud and breach of contract, and wants the court to appoint a receiver for that money and award him punitive damages of 22.5 million dollars.

First Biddle filed a complaint against Barney. As usual the parties to the lawsuit are listed in the order Plaintiff(s) vs. Defendant(s):

In what follows we will need to know that Carl Barney controls  Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE),  Prometheus Foundation,  and Carl Barney Living Trust.  The money Barney donated to OSI came from these legal entities. For short one can say Barney donated the money.

Craig Biddle controls Objective Standard Institute (OSI). He serves as its Chief Financial Officer and his wife as its President and Secretary.

In each complaint we will focus on its principle allegations and the requests it makes to the court for what to do about them, abridging and translating the legalese into something easier for the reader to digest. The paragraphs of each complaint are numbered and on occasion we refer to a paragraph by its number. When I express my opinion it will be prefaced with “Comment.”

Each man will get to tell his side of the story.

First we consider Biddle’s – or more correctly, OSI’s – complaint. The section “General Allegations” claims the following (paragraphs 27 and 28 describe Biddle’s version of the breakup):

• Barney helped fund OSI from the beginning. On October 31^st 2019 his Prometheus Foundation gave $ 1,180,000 to OSI to launch its operations. He agreed to give more money in January of each year for the next four years, from 2020 to 2023.

• On December 1^st 2020 CEHE gave $ 1,500,000 to OSI (“First Grant”).

• On January 11^th 2021 Carl Barney Living Trust (“Trust”) gave $ 2,000,000 to OSI (“Second Grant”). On May 6^th 2021 CEHE gave $ 2,000,000 to OSI (“Third Grant”).

• There was no written agreement concerning either the Second or Third Grant.

• More than two months after the Third Grant, Barney sent OSI a document (“First Advisement”) declaring that any use of the First, Second, or Third Grant requires the unanimous approval of Barney, Biddle and Lenny Esmond (a CPA doing work for both Barney and OSI, independently) except amounts of $ 10,000 or less. Nonetheless the Advisement said the funds were to be  “unrestricted for financial and tax reporting purposes” (quoting the complaint).

• Barney presented the First Advisement as an agreement. It contained signature areas for Barney, Biddle, Esmond, and Biddle’s wife Sarah. OSI does not possess a signed copy of this document and is not sure if one exists.

• On December 31^st 2021 Barney and Trust awarded another $ 2,000,000 to OSI (“Fourth Grant”). As with the Second and Third Grant, there was no written agreement connected with it.

• Mid-February 2022 Barney delivered a “Second Advisement” with the same title as the first and updated to account for the Fourth Grant. On February 14^th it was signed by the Biddles, Barney, and the next day by Esmond.

• OSI stored all the funds Defendant donated in a separate investment account. These funds plus the interest generated are referred to as “OSI Reserve Funds.” They have been used to pay OSI’s ongoing expenses. OSI considers the principle (the given money) as being used oldest first – first in first out – with the interest on the principle to be used last of all.

• In July 2022 Biddle spoke with Barney about plans to spend a million dollars of OSI Reserve Funds on OSI operations, conferences, and other programs. Barney approved verbally and Biddle transferred that amount from Reserve Funds to OSI’s checking account. In July of the following year, 2023, OSI wrote Barney about using $ 600,000 more for the same purpose and Barney assented verbally. From complaint paragraph 18: “These expenditures exhausted the First Grant made to OSI by CEHE in December 2020. After these expenditures, approximately $ 5.9 million of the original OSI Reserve Funds remained in OSI bank accounts.”Comment: OSI spent an amount that was just over the amount of Barney’s First Grant, $ 1,500,000, allegedly the only grant of the four whose disposition Barney controlled.

• OSI sponsored substantial work from 2021 onward fulfilling its mission as a charity.

• In early 2024 OSI successfully applied to Prometheus for another grant of about $ 1,300,000 (“Bridge Grant”) to fund certain of its activities through July 2024. This was documented on March 19^th 2024 in an agreement (“Bridge Grant Agreement”) between OSI and Prometheus signed by Biddle (OSI) and David Hardy (Prometheus). From complaint paragraph 21: “Use of the funds was limited to certain purposes that had been discussed among the parties. Unlike any of the earlier grants from Barney, the Trust or CEHE, the Bridge Grant Agreement not only required OSI to use the fund in a manner that had been specified, but it provided that any funds not used for those purposes would have to be repaid to Prometheus. The Bridge Grant Agreement also included express termination provisions, which allowed Prometheus to terminate the Bridge Grant in the event that OSI had engaged in any misrepresentations, used the granted funds for purposes other than the specified purposes, terminated the work for which the granted funds were intended, or else failed to maintain the records required by the Bridge Grant Agreement.”Comment: The complaint emphasizes the novelty of the written conditions but gives no reason why Barney now was making conditions in writing.

• Paragraph 22: “The Bridge Grant was intended to help OSI continue its operations in the first half of 2024 until a more thorough arrangement could be reached between OSI and Prometheus through which Prometheus would again agree to fund OSI’s operations on a multiple year basis.”Comment: Why OSI needed money at this point is a question. According to the complaint, a year before OSI held $ 5,900,000 in its Reserve Funds (plus accrued interest) plus about $ 600,000 that had recently been transferred to OSI’s checking account.

• On July 16^th 2024 OSI submitted a proposal to Prometheus for a grant of $ 4,750,000 to be paid out over a period of five years (“Proposal”).  On September 4^th 2024 OSI and Prometheus entered into a grant agreement (“Second Installment Grant Agreement” or “SIGA”) that provided for five grants to OSI totaling the proposed amount, $ 4,750,000 (“Installment Grants”). There would be an initial payout of $ 700,000 on the signing of the SIGA. The second payout of $ 1,400,000 would be made on the first day of 2025. Then there would be annual payouts of declining amounts each year to January 1^st 2028. The performance of OSI would be compared to the projections in the Proposal. Otherwise, the terms of the SIGA largely mirrored the terms of the Bridge Grant Agreement.

• Per the SIGA, Prometheus gave $ 700,000 to OSI in September 2024 and $ 1,400,000 in January 2025.

• In 2024 and 2024 OSI’s work progressed and OSI met many of the quantitative projections set in the Proposal.Comment: The complaint doesn’t mention the quantitative projections for the next year, 2025. It doesn’t mention that the website of Barney’s Prometheus Foundation boasted of OSI’s progress in 2024 and 2025.

• Paragraph 27:  “The personal relationship between Craig Biddle and Barney began to break down in October 2025 due largely to a series of miscommunications and other interpersonal issues. With the deterioration of this core personal relationship came a concomitant breakdown in the relationship between OSI, on one hand, and Barney, Prometheus and CEHE on the other.”

• Paragraph 28:  “The deteriorating relationship between Barney and OSI culminated on January 6, 2026 with an email from Barney to Craig Biddle that purported to instruct OSI to immediately transfer all of the OSI Reserve Funds to Prometheus. With approximately $ 3 million of interest generated on those funds over the years, the amount of OSI Reserve Funds that Barney demanded OSI transfer to Prometheus is currently about $ 9 million. Barney repeated this demand in a second email on January 7, 2026. Two days later, Barney sent Mr. Biddle a third email, demanding a complete accounting for the monies making up the OSI Reserve Funds as well as confirmation of the status of OSI wiring the funds to Prometheus.”

• Paragraph 29:  “Barney has no legal basis to demand an accounting or the return of the roughly $ 9 million in OSI Reserve Funds. With the funds from the First Grant exhausted in 2023 or shortly thereafter, all remaining monies and interest in the OSI Reserve Funds result from the Second Grant, Third Grant, or Fourth Grant. Each of those grants lacked any application, award or award letter issued by or to OSI.”

• From paragraph 31: “OSI is ... informed and believes, that [Barney, CEHE or Prometheus] will continue to try to prevent OSI from making any use of the OSI Reserve Funds, putting OSI’s nonprofit tax status in jeopardy.”Comment: Obviously relinquishing the funds would put the existence of OSI in jeopardy but I am slow to understand – perhaps because I don’t know charity law – how it would it cause OSI to lose its 501(3)(c) status.

• Paragraph 32:  “The First Advisement and Second Advisement (together, “Advisements”) constitute unenforceable statements of intention and policy by OSI. They do not restrict OSI’s ability to utilize the OSI Reserve Funds to pursue its charitable missions, either with or without the consent of Barney.”

• Under federal and state law anyone who seeks to make a tax-deductible donation to a charity must have “a clear and unmistakable intention ... to absolutely and irrevocably divest himself of the title, dominion, and control of the subject matter of the gift” and make “the irrevocable transfer of the present legal title and of the dominion and control of the entire gift to the donee, so that the donor can exercise no further act of dominion or control over it.” (From complaint paragraph 33 quoting a legal reference.)

• Barney, his Trust, or CEHE claimed tax deductions for the grants that make up the OSI Reserve Funds. Thus the Defendants gave up control of those funds. From complaint paragraph 35: “As the Second Grant, Third Grant and Fourth Grant to OSI had no written documentation accompanying the grants, those transfers of funds were free of conditions.”

• (The complaint makes certain allegations about the grants being neither “gift instruments” nor “trusts” but the subject is too deep for me to summarize.)

• The SIGA required Prometheus to give $ 1,250,000 to OSI on January 1^st 2026 (the third installment). Instead, on January 6^th Prometheus gave only $ 104,166.70, or 1/12 (one month’s worth) of the required amount. Yet OSI never agreed to alter the SIGA’s payment schedule. Prometheus was obligated to give OSI $ 1,250,000 on January 1^st 2026 because the SIGA between OSI and Prometheus was an enforceable contract. From complaint paragraph 55: “The SIGA required Prometheus to make a series of five payments, starting with the date the SIGA was executed, and then an annual payment on January 1 of each subsequent year from 2025 to 2028.”

That concludes the high points of Biddle / OSI’s allegations. The gist is that OSI spent Barney’s first grant and has a right to hold fast to the remainder plus interest, totaling some nine million dollars. Furthermore, Barney has an agreement he must honor to give OSI more grants over the next three years totaling over two million dollars.

The following is abridged and edited from the section “Prayer for Relief,” that is, what Biddle wants from the judge:

1. A declaration from the court that:

Now we consider Barney’s complaint. The following are among the claims in the sections “Parties and Jurisdiction,” “Aiding and Abetting Conspirators,” and “Background Facts and Allegations.” For some of the claims only extensive quoting will do them justice. (Paragraphs 29 to 37 describe Barney’s version of the break up.)

• Does 1 through 30 are sued under fictitious names because their true names are unknown to Barney. The Defendants, including Does 1 through 30, are all of a piece. From complaint paragraph 7: “Whenever this Complaint makes reference to ‘Defendant’, ‘Defendants’, or a specifically named defendant, such allegations shall be deemed to mean the acts of the defendants acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.”  From complaint paragraph 8: “each Defendant was acting as the agent, alter ego, servant, employee, and/or representative of the other Defendants, and was acting within the course and scope of their agency, employment ...”  From complaint paragraph 9: “each of the Defendants have pursued, or joined in the pursuit of, a common course of conduct, and have acted in concert and/or conspired with one another in furtherance of the improper acts and transactions that are the subject of this Complaint.”

• From paragraph 10: “Each of the Defendants’ agents ... acted in a knowing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. ... each Defendant, including each of the Doe Defendants, acted with knowledge of the primary wrongdoing, substantially assisted in the accomplishment of that wrongdoing, and was aware of their role in furthering the wrongful conduct and resulting harm to Plaintiff.”

• Barney has financially supported the Defendants and their enterprises for over 20 years. Until a short time ago Barney believed that his patronage “was rooted in a shared vision ... and in a genuine friendship based on mutual respect and trust.” (Quoting complaint paragraph 11.)

• Paragraph 12: “During the 20-year history, Mr. Biddle has repeatedly failed in his professional efforts, but despite this Plaintiff has personally funded him and bailed him out of financial mismanagement – including significant credit card debt – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plaintiff provided this significant financial support in secret, to allow Mr. Biddle to maintain the illusion of self-sufficiency so that his financial failures would not destroy his efforts to advance the educational vision. Plaintiff is now well informed and believes that because the Biddles became financially dependent on him as their personal piggy bank, they engaged in a long-term scheme to feign friendship while secretly resenting and reviling Plaintiff. Every act of kindness by Plaintiff was another reminder of Mr. Biddle’s lack of business acumen.”Comments: (1) The last part might be true but it is hard to understand how anyone other than Biddle could know that it is true.  (2) It sounds like the illusion was directed at fooling us. If so it would be a curious admission on the part of Plaintiff.  (3) Barney himself didn’t show much business acumen in his dealings with Biddle.

• On December 1^st 2020, at the urging of the Biddle Defendants, who said the money would be used for charitable purposes and only with Barney’s agreement, Barney had CEHE transfer $ 1.5 million to OSI for the Biddle Defendants to hold in trust (“First Transfer”).

• On January 11^th 2021, at the urging of the Biddle Defendants, who said the money would be used for charitable purposes and only with Barney’s agreement, Barney directly transferred $ 2 million to OSI for the Biddle Defendants to hold in trust (“Second Transfer”).

• On May 6^th 2021, at the urging etc. as before, Barney had CEHE transfer $ 2 million to OSI (“Third Transfer”).

• On December 31^st 2021, at the urging etc. as before, Barney directly transferred $ 2 million to OSI (“Fourth Transfer”). This together with the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Transfers will be called “Financial Transfers.”

• The total amount of the Financial Transfers at the time they were made was $ 7.5 million. Barney believes the Financial Transfers were transferred to an investment account in the name of OSI, and that wherever the Financial Transfers went they have generated interest income, now well over $ 9 million (“Money In Trust”). The transactions and precise balance will be established through an accounting and discovery.

• Before the First Transfer, the Biddle Defendants, Barney, and Barney’s accountant understood that Money In Trust was being parked temporarily while Carl Barney decided which charities he wanted some or all of the money to go.

• In early 2022 Biddle drafted an agreement (“Trust Agreement”) that documented the parties’ oral agreements from before the First Transfer. The Biddle Defendants, through OSI, desired a formal written procedure for the charitable use and disbursement of the Financial Transfers and resulting Money In Trust.

• The Trust Agreement says that OSI’s use of any of the Money In Trust, except amounts of $ 10,000 or less (“Discretionary Transactions”), required the unanimous approval of Barney, Biddle, and third party Lenny Esmond. And the parties understand that the Biddle Defendants would provide an annual report setting forth all payments made from Money In Trust including any Discretionary Transactions.

• In Spring 2023 Barney loaned Biddle $ 600,000 to cover expenses related to a conference sponsored by OSI (“Loan”). Before Barney made the Loan, Biddle told him that the full $ 600,000 would be repaid shortly after the conference ended. To date the Biddle Defendants have not repaid any of the Loan.

• The Biddle Defendants concealed from Barney that the OSI funds under their control were more than enough to repay the Loan. In January 2024 Barney discovered that the Biddle Defendants had awarded themselves salary increases of more than 40% within two years.

• Paragraph 29: “Upon being called to account, the Biddle Defendants decided to further their scheme to maintain control over, and eventually to abscond with, the Money In Trust by agreeing to informal mediation regarding their unauthorized salary increases with a third party that Mr. Barney knew and trusted. In order to lull Mr. Barney into a false sense of trust in them, on May 4, 2024, the Biddle Defendants agreed to pay back to OSI the difference between their new salaries and their prior salaries, plus 6%. Mr. Biddle also verbally and in writing pretended to profusely apologize – not only to Plaintiff but also to third parties – for the duplicitous attempt to enrich themselves at the expense of OSI and Plaintiff. They did so with full knowledge that during the next two years they, through OSI and other Doe Defendants, would immorally and unethically assert sole control over the Money In Trust to enrich themselves, in breach of the trust Mr. Barney had placed in them and to Mr. Barney’s detriment.”

• Paragraph 30: “Undaunted in pursuing their devious scheme, shortly after they agreed to return their salary increases, the Biddle Defendants caused OSI to increase Mr. Biddle’s salary by nearly 90% (from $ 58,000 to $ 109,000) without disclosure. The Biddle Defendants did this with full knowledge that the result of such an increase would be to have resources necessary to abscond with the Money In Trust.”

• From November 29^th through December 6^th of 2025 Barney funded a week-long visit to Canyon Ranch Wellness Resort with the Biddle Defendants (“2025 Retreat”).

• Paragraph 32: “During the 2025 Retreat, Mr. Biddle completely blindsided Mr. Barney by informing him that the personal relationship and friendship that Mr. Barney thought they had was a farce.”Comment: “Blindside” means to surprise unpleasantly, like hitting someone who is facing away, attacking their “blind side.”

• Paragraph 33: “Mr. Barney subsequently learned that far from a friend, Mr. Biddle had considered Mr. Barney as someone to ‘train’ for the purpose of extracting money.”

• Paragraph 34: “Mr. Barney also subsequently learned that Mr. Biddle had no compunction about manipulating, defrauding, and stealing from Mr. Barney because of an underlying disdain. In fact, Mr. Biddle confessed to a third party ‘I utterly dislike Carl’ and that when Mr. Biddle informed Mr. Barney that the Biddle Defendants’ ‘friendship’ had only been pretense to obtain the trust necessary to take his money, Mr. Barney ‘looked mortified, because I don’t think he saw that coming’.”

• Paragraph 35: “Finally, Mr. Barney learned that prior to the 2025 Retreat, the Biddle Defendants had been conspiring with attorneys and others to seize the Money In Trust for their own control, and even made a call in furtherance of that conspiracy during the 2025 Retreat itself.”

• Paragraph 36. “After having the scales fall from his eyes regarding the long-term deception of him by the Biddle Defendants, Mr. Barney realized that the Money In Trust needed to immediately be accounted for and transferred to a trustworthy charity to prevent further damage by the Biddle Defendants and to ensure the money was utilized consistent with the parties’ understanding that occurred prior to, and was later partially reflected in, the Trust Agreement. To that end, on January 6, 2026, Mr. Barney sent an email to Mr. Biddle and Mr. Esmond stating that funds currently being held in OSI in trust for later determination should be transferred immediately from OSI to a third-party charitable foundation immediately.”

• After receiving no response, on January 9^th 2026 Barney sent another email to Biddle and Esmond requesting an accounting of the Money, including the identification of the amount that would be transferred to the third-party charitable foundation.Comment: Barney doesn’t say what third-party charitable foundation.

• After again receiving no response, on January 13^th 2026 Barney sent formal notice to the Biddle Defendants stating that any use of the Money In Trust made without his written authorization is improper and can only be understood as a personal misappropriation by the Biddle Defendants. From complaint paragraph 38: “The Biddle Defendants implicitly acknowledged that they had, were in the process of, and/or fully intend to personally misappropriate the Money In Trust with their complete silence.”

That concludes the high points of Barney’s allegations. In a nutshell: Biddle donated money to OSI with the understanding that he would control where it went. He now thinks Biddle defrauded him and wants the unspent part of his donations, plus interest, moved to another (unnamed) charity.

In the complaint there follow ten sections titled “Cause of Action” for (quoting the subheadings, here made lowercase)  “fraud,”  “breach of contract,”  “breach of fiduciary duty,”  “aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,”  “financial elder abuse,”  “fraudulent transfer,”  “unfair business practices,”  “appointment of receiver,”  “accounting,”  and  “violation of penal code section 496.”

The last paragraph of that last, “violation of penal code section 496” reads as follows:  “As a direct and proximate result of the Biddle Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealments, as herein described, the Biddle Defendants have violated Penal Code § 496 and Plaintiff is entitled to recover three times the amount of the $ 7.5 million Financial Transfers they stole for a total of $ 22.5 million, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

The following is abridged and edited from the complaint’s “Prayer for Relief.” Barney seeks judgement for:

1. Damages.2. An accounting of the Money In Trust.3. Exemplary and punitive damages.4. Costs of suit incurred.5. Punitive damages and treble damages.6. Interest.7. The Court to appoint a receiver to take possession of and manage the Money In Trust.8. Other remedies, including injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and constructive trust over the funds wrongfully taken or received by Defendants.9. Reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Who is right?  Who knows, indeed, who cares?  I had a dim view of both Biddle and Barney before learning of their bust-up, and reading the amazing allegations in their complaints only reinforces it. The lawsuits are a squabble between two self-righteous phonies. [1]

What is interesting is that this affair may bring down the “Objective Standard Institute” and perhaps its associated The Objective Standard. It would be a good thing. On the issues of immigration, the Ukraine War, Iran, Israel, anti-white neurosis, Trump, and others (their love of Lincoln, their hatred of Ron Paul, etc.) they are as noxious as the “Ayn Rand Institute.” Like ARI, they are cultural leftists. They sully the fine people and ideas they praise, the praise being only a show to attract followers. (OSI honoring the composer Leroy Anderson was like Gulliver in his travels getting hugged by a Yahoo.) What they say might be true but I’d rather hear it from someone who deserves to say it.

But setting aside the biographies of Biddle and Barney, and reading their complaints as if submitted by unknown people of unknown character – call them B‑1 and B‑2, the names behind Plaintiff and Defendant signifying nothing to us – here are a few thoughts.

OSI is a 501(c)(3) corporation, a charity that takes in tax-exempt donations and is supposed to spend the money to further its published mission. It seems odd to me that for all its existence, about five years, OSI allowed over nine million dollars to accumulate, and spent – if I understand the complaints – only about two and a half million dollars, and most of that during its first year. However I have no experience in the charity business and don’t know California charity law either. Perhaps this is normal, say to build up a sort of war chest or to earn future on-going interest.

When describing the reason for the rupture, B-1’s complaint is general, vague, lacking in detail (paragraph 27) whereas B‑2’s provides a wealth of alleged detail (paragraphs 29 to 37). In my opinion some of those details provoke skepticism, for example paragraph 34.

If B-1 and the 30 Does are as corrupt as B‑2 claims they are, the effect of paragraphs 7 to 9 might be to make them turn on one another.

The disagreement between B-1 and B-2 involves who controls the donations. B‑2 made a generous launch donation before B‑1 formally opened, then generous repeated operational donations (which we will call simply donations) over the next five years until the rupture. The question is, who controls those donations after they were made? If I understand B‑1’s complaint, he claims that beyond the first operational donation – $ 1.5 M – B‑2 has no control. And because B‑1 has spent $ 1.6 M, any control B‑2 had has been eliminated

B-2 claims he had a verbal agreement with B‑1 that he, B‑2, would control the disbursement of the money that he donates. B‑1 says there was no written agreement, insinuating – we could infer – that any oral agreement is immaterial. Who knows how the court will weigh their allegations.

But set aside the legal aspect of the case and consider the human aspect. B‑2 generously gave B‑1 all the money he asked for. If B‑1 gave back all that remained he would lose nothing he had possessed before meeting B‑1. As it is, judging from the complaints – which is all we have to go on – in my opinion B‑1 doesn’t seem to be giving back even gratitude.

If Hollywood made this affair into a movie no one would believe it.

We can only conjecture how this case will play out in court. B‑2 has the deeper pockets and can afford to lose whereas if he wins totally it looks like B‑1 would face bankruptcy.

Returning to seeing the two parties as the real people they are, Biddle and Barney (and their associates), who should we root for? We should place a high value on gratitude and it seems to me that in this case Biddle is remarkably deficient in that quality. Though Barney might be dislikable, may he win over Biddle, totally.

That would likely be the end of OSI but the associated TOS journal (OSI was an outgrowth of TOS) might well survive. They are separate legal entities even though the same Does are involved in each. [2].

Barney seems attracted to Objectivist groups. Having been burned at ARI and now at OSI, where will he go next? There are only three incorporated Objectivist groups (alleged anyway) and the one left is “The Atlas Society.”  Unfortunately, this organization is again as noxious as ARI though at lower volume. On the plus side for Barney perhaps (it is possible he has changed his mind over the years) is that the president of TAS, Jennifer Grossman, had been – like he – chummy with the moral monstrosity called Richard Minns, a self-described Objectivist and – objectively-described – psychopath. [3]

It is disheartening to think of some of the people attracted to Ayn Rand. To repeat an aphorism from the ARI Watch article referenced in footnote 3:

Don’t judge something by its alleged admirers.