The trouble
There was trouble before the auction. The long and short of it is that Sylvan Leonard Peikoff, heir to Ayn Rand, tried to take Rand’s gifts to Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen from them and impede the auction. He did not succeed. The auction ended up taking place as planned and was a resounding success.
Peikoff alleged that neither Branden nor Hessen were the rightful owners of Rand’s manuscripts and hired a lawyer, Marcia B. Paul from
Kay Collyer & Boose, LLP (in New York City), to send intimidating letters not only to Branden and Hessen, but also to the Butterfield & Butterfield auction house. The first letter, dated September 25, 1998, was to Branden and Hessen. They retained Henry Holzer to respond to Ms. Paul and sent a request around the Objectivist and libertarian world for donations for a litigation fund as preparation for legal action. A settlement was reached before the auction date without the matter going to court. Peikoff no longer contested the legal ownership of the papers and each side was allowed to make one archival copy of Rand’s papers for scholarship purposes.
This affair has been documented online since 1998 at a site set up specifically for that purpose (including the litigation fund) called OLDFOP, and it was written up as an article in the libertarian magazine,
Liberty. Neither the site nor the article is presently available on active Internet sites. OLDFOP (formerly at www.oldfop.org) has not been continued and the
Liberty archives on its recently renovated site extend back only to January 2002 as of this moment.
Some of this story has been put online by Chris Wolf, which is found on the
Jefferson Technology Press site. Wolf’s section is called
FAQ—What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?. Three of the OLDFOP documents referenced below are hosted there (with mention and links given in the appropriate discussion). I mention this because Wolf’s online material has been one of the major sources of documentation for problems with the auction (and other issues critical of Peikoff and ARI) for years.
As to the unavailable material, there is a wonderful resource called the
Internet Archive Wayback Machine that archives defunct sites. Most of the links below go to material archived there. Thus all the original documents can be read by linking to them in addition to my comments here.
1. “Fighting Over Ayn Rand's Papers”
by Eric D. Dixon,
Liberty, March 1999
The value of this article, outside of the story, is the number of small quotes from Peikoff. As there are copyright restrictions, the correspondence from Peikoff could not be provided by Branden or Hessen (or even Dixon) except for fair use passages, so his side is not documented in a form accessible to the public. Unfortunately, Dixon did not give any sources for the Peikoff quotes presented in the article other than “through his attorneys.” From the article:
Eric Dixon said:
Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir, categorically denied that Rand would have given Branden and Hessen so many pages of manuscript, and demanded that they provide proof of ownership. Through his attorney he wrote Branden and Hessen stating that various factors "strongly suggest that you cannot establish valid title to all of the materials which you intend to offer at Auction."
…
Peikoff claimed that Ayn Rand's "lifelong policy, expressed repeatedly to witnesses, was to retain in her own permanent possession all documents related to her own writing."
Actually, the first quote above came from the letter by Peikoff’s attorney dated September 25, 1998, as given in a document by Henry Holzer where it is repeated (see Item 2.10 below).
No source is given as to where the statement below was issued. From the context, this one was not issued through his attorney, but made by Peikoff himself. It directly contradicts his earlier contention about Rand’s “lifelong policy.”
Eric Dixon said:
On the morning of the auction, days after the conflict was settled, Peikoff issued a statement declaring that Branden "has furnished what I regard as convincing proof that she was given these pages as a special gift by her then close friend, Ayn Rand."
Dixon cites a statement published by Barbara Branden on November 23, 1998 on “a public discussion forum” (without citing which forum), objecting to Peikoff’s implication that he needed to be furnished any proof.
Barbara Branden said:
Peikoff, in his recent petulant statement, asserted that I proved my claim of ownership to him. I did no such thing. I provided him with not a single word or statement or piece of evidence that my property was indeed my property. By some miracle, he apparently came to what I shall loosely call his senses where I am concerned, although not about Bob Hessen.
Peikoff is further quoted with respect to Robert Hessen (once again, without giving the source):
Eric Dixon said:
Despite Hessen's detailed account and its corroboration by witnesses, Peikoff continued to cast aspersions on Hessen's ownership:
“Whereas Hessen claims that she gave him the manuscripts rather than throwing them out, the fact is that she left behind at her death numerous cartons of notes, outlines, and discards from many of the very articles which Hessen claims she gave to him instead of throwing out.”
…
Peikoff goes on to note: "Ayn Rand did not give a remotely comparable gift to a single other person throughout her lifetime. As for me, for instance, to whom she left everything, she never while alive offered even one page of manuscript."
Dixon then commented that Peikoff received many manuscripts from Rand, including the eight-part manuscript of
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Technically speaking, Rand did not “offer” them to Peikoff. He asked for them instead and then she gave them to him. Dixon failed to mention that Rand often made more than one autograph manuscript of an article and what she gave to Hessen was usually her first draft. How this practice escaped Peikoff’s notice in his accusation is certainly a mystery.
Peikoff apparently was not happy with admitting defeat. Things already were ugly with insinuations of theft from him and threats of suing for libel from Branden and Hessen. In the case of Hessen, he asked for Rand’s first drafts at the beginning, but then she continued giving them to him over the years without any further request, treating the initial requests as valid for a lifetime. One major problem seems to be that Peikoff did not want to believe this. There is an episode where he practically accused Hessen of stealing the papers from storage, which prompted a long statement from Hessen signed under oath. This charge continued even after the settlement. The following Peikoff quote from Dixon’s article apparently is from the same statement as above.
Eric Dixon said:
… Peikoff continued to spread innuendo. In his statement, Peikoff said that regardless of the current rules of the legal system, he does not believe Hessen morally owned the manuscripts offered at auction, and goes on to state: "There are many words in our language to describe such an individual and the means by which these papers came into his possession. As far as I'm concerned, you may take your pick of them."
Dixon concludes that Rand simply gave these drafts to people she liked who asked for them and for no other reason, and that she started saving the ones she didn’t give away after she became convinced that others would value them.
2. The OLDFOP site
As you can see on the site’s banner below, OLDFOP stands for Objectivist-Libertarian Defense Fund Opposing Peikoff.

On the left of the home page is a sidebar giving a list of 10 documents (discussed below using the same names for links as on the sidebar, being that one is actually 2 different affidavits, and another is a group of 7 different letters and 1 response). A message from Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen states:
Branden and Hessen said:
This case, and the OLDFOP project, began with our receipt via Federal Express, on Monday, September 28, 1998, of a threatening letter from a lawyer for Sylvan Leonard Peikoff, the Estate of Ayn Rand, and the Ayn Rand Institute.
Copyright law prevents us from reproducing that letter. However, all documents pertaining to this matter that are legally permitted will be reproduced on this web site, providing OLDFOP supporters with the latest information.
There is another declaration:
Branden and Hessen said:
This site became inactive on November 20, 1998. The site's content, however, is still being made available for historical purposes.
According to an indicator above the left-hand sidebar: “Contributions & Pledges as of 10/26: $83,150.”
2.01. Rand Auction
This document is entitled “Press Release for Auction of Ayn Rand Memorabilia.”
This is a standard press release giving event and contact information. On a minor point of interest, it states that the catalogue was going for $15 before October 31, 1998, and $20 afterwards. (As mentioned earlier, printed in the catalogue it is priced at $25 plus $3.50 shipping.) One paragraph stands out:
Quote
These writings offer a rare look into Ayn Rand's creative writing process. In an age when most writers type or word-process their output, and perhaps only the final version survives for scrutiny by scholars, this unique collection is entirely handwritten pages, heavily edited, thus revealing significant divergences from the published texts. The subjects range across politics, economics, ethics, aesthetics, psychology and epistemology.
2.02. Introducing OLDFOP
This document is entitled “An Open Letter to Objectivists and Libertarians from Robert Hessen” and dated October 2, 1998. This letter was sent around to many places in the Objectivist and libertarian world.
It started by mentioning an announcement of the auction on Barbara Branden’s website, but that announcement no longer exists. Here is an excerpt giving the situation:
Robert Hessen said:
When Leonard Peikoff, the self-described Pope of Objectivism, learned about the auction, he made no inquiry of Barbara or me as to what exactly we own or how we each had acquired what we own. Instead, he responded by having his attorney send us a threatening letter, proclaiming that he alone is the heir and owner of all manuscripts written by Ayn Rand, and giving us ten days not only to furnish him with a detailed inventory of our holdings, but also with proof of our ownership of our respective manuscript holdings. These are 29 handwritten pages from Atlas Shrugged, and nearly 5,000 handwritten pages of non-fiction, virtually all of the articles, reviews and speeches Ayn Rand wrote between l962 and l974.
Peikoff asserts that the burden of proof is on Barbara and me to prove our rights of ownership. With no explanation of why Barbara and I don't own the property that Ayn Rand gifted to us, Peikoff warns he will initiate a lawsuit to block the sale of our property.
Henry Mark Holzer was already acting as their legal council at the time of this letter, but Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen also wanted to retain Manuel S. Klausner, “a prominent Libertarian lawyer in Los Angeles.” Costs were estimated at $250,000. As mentioned above, $83,150 was already raised by late October.
Interestingly enough, a gift donation was not solicited. Instead, a loan was, paying 10% per annum.
Chris Wolf keeps a copy of this letter online under another link title:
“Leonard Peikoff Threatens To Sue Barbara Branden.” He also adds comments of his own.
2.03. Response to Peikoff Attorney (1)
This document is entitled “Holzer's First Response to Peikoff Attorney” and dated September 29, 1998. It is the first of three letters on the OLDFOP site from Henry Mark Holzer to Marcia B. Paul.
It was in response to a letter from Ms. Paul dated September 25, 1998. Basically, it covered legal bases like stating that silence is not to be construed as agreement, etc., fully denied Peikoff’s claims and demands, threatened countersuit advising that a defense fund was being prepared, and was fairly aggressive rhetoric-wise. Here are some interesting quotes:
Henry Mark Holzer said:
Neither Sylvan Leonard Peikoff—(individually, or as heir to the Estate of Ayn Rand, or as Executor of that Estate, or as Rand's (second) intellectual heir—nor the Estate itself, nor The Ayn Rand Institute, have any claim, de facto, de jure, or on any other basis, to any of the Branden or Hessen items being auctioned.
…
This means that if Peikoff sues—or otherwise interferes with my clients' right to sell property which is lawfully and morally theirs—Peikoff, the Rand Estate, and the Institute will themselves be sued by my clients for interference with their contractual relations and other torts—and because any action by Peikoff and his associates would be malicious and frivolous, we shall seek both punitive damages and sanctions against them and against any counsel who participate in the making of spurious claims.
…
As to your quaint notion that my clients somehow have the burden of proving to Peikoff that they own the material being auctioned, rather than Peikoff proving non-ownership, suffice it to say that you will receive no information or other assistance from us. If Peikoff, and your firm, believe that my clients' non-ownership can be proved, you know how, and where, to try.
…
… I cannot help noting that Peikoff's concern about dispersal rings hollow in view of his apparently having conducted an auction at which he, himself, sold a Rand manuscript.
I found the first quote curious and I wonder if there was any legal reason for Holzer to referr to Peikoff as “Rand's (second) intellectual heir.” As incredible as it seems, Holzer managed to make a simple statement that is amiss from both sides of the divide but for different reasons. I have no doubt that the Peikoff side would claim that since no “first” intellectual heir exists, there can be no second, and the Branden side would claim that Peikoff is not Rand’s “intellectual heir,” but simply her legal heir.
I found the last quote really intriguing. I tried to find information on the auction conducted by Peikoff, but I was unable to uncover anything. I can’t help wondering what was sold and where the auction took place.
Chris Wolf keeps a copy of this letter online under another link title:
“Barbara Branden Throws Down The Glove!”.
2.04. Response to Peikoff Attorney (2)
This document is entitled “Holzer's Second Response to Peikoff Attorney” and dated October 12, 1998. It is the second of three letters on the OLDFOP site from Henry Mark Holzer to Marcia B. Paul.
Here the tone is different. Ms. Paul sent Holzer a letter dated October 9 asking them to waive any rights they may have had from the September 25 letter. Frankly, the only such right I can imagine would be to sue for libel or disclose the information in public. Ms. Paul didn’t stop there. She also sent another letter on the same day to Butterfield & Butterfield asking questions and making insinuations.
From Holzer’s rhetoric and style, it appears that Ms. Paul was very much aware of legal danger to Peikoff (not to mention the bad publicity) if he continued to pursue his course as originally planned. Here is an excerpt (in reference to the aforesaid letter to Butterfield & Butterfield):
Henry Mark Holzer said:
As to that letter, much of which seems to have been taken from your September 25th letter to my clients, suffice to say that the few "reasons" you offer (in paragraphs numbered 1, 3, 4 and 5) to justify your "questions" actually underscore how outrageous your client's claim is that he may own my clients' property. In view of our proof of ownership, his claim is all the more outrageous. If we were dealing with someone whom I believed was open to reason and proof, I would make it available to you. But since I verily believe that nothing we advance, no matter how ironclad, would make the slightest difference to Peikoff, you will have to obtain it in court—if he elects to go there, in the face of the downside exposure he has should he lose.
2.05. Letters from Supporters
This document is entitled “Selected Letters from OLDFOP Supporters” and none of the letters are dated.
Several short letters to Barbara offering support and expressing indignation are presented from Jim Peron, Paul M. Eisen, Joan Mitchell Blumenthal, Moira Russell, Wendy McElroy and Carol B. Low. One such letter to Robert Hessen from Steve Reed is given.
Jim Peron’s letter elicited a response from Henry Holzer:
Quote
From Jim Peron (to Barbara Branden)
I was shocked to learn that Peikoff called Elayne Kalberman and asked her if it was possible that you had a key to the NBI offices in the Empire State Building after the break and were therefore able to steal the Atlas Shrugged manuscript pages then. In other words he is accusing you of theft or is raising this as a possibility. Peikoff, grasping at straws, by virtually accusing you of stealing simply shows the bankruptcy of his frantic attempt to take from you that which rightfully is yours. Does Prof. Holzer believe that Peikoff's statement, even though in the form of a question, constitutes defamation for which you can sue him?
Response from Professor Holzer
This is my answer to the question posed by Jim Peron. Anyone who states, or implies—or even puts the notion in the form of a question—that you and/or Bob Hessen may have stolen your Rand manuscripts has uttered an actionable slander for which they will be liable. Indeed, in some jurisdictions accusing someone of a crime is considered “slander per se,” enabling the person defamed to get to a jury without the need to prove damages. In that situation, the jury can award whatever it wishes. Without getting into technical legal details, suffice to say that even if you are some sort of a 'public figure,' that status will not necessarily insulate the defamer from liability and damages.
Chris Wolf keeps a copy of Peron’s letter and Holzer’s reply above online under another link title:
“More Crap From Peikoff.” He lists the date as October. 9, 1998.
2.06. Branden & Hessen Challenge Peikoff
This document is entitled “Branden & Hessen Challenge Peikoff” and dated October 15, 1998. It is the third of three letters on the OLDFOP site from Henry Mark Holzer to Marcia B. Paul.
After Holzer mentioned that his clients had spent time examining the September 25 letter from Ms. Paul to them and the October 9 letter to Butterfield & Butterfield, he stated the following (with underline in the original):
Henry Mark Holzer said:
While there is much in those letters which appalls them, they are particularly outraged at the implication in the Butterfield letter. On behalf of Peikoff you say in paragraph 4 on page 3: "That Branden and/or Hessen have used this access [to Rand material] to obtain possession of materials to which they were not lawfully entitled is evidenced by certain litigation between the parties which has occurred in the past." This carefully drawn, lawyerly phrasing nonetheless leaves a clear, wholly unacceptable implication.
As I am sure you and your client realize, there is virtually no way my clients can defend their reputations against this kind of vile innuendo. Hence, they put the following challenge to Peikoff: If he believes that Branden and/or Hessen stole manuscripts from Rand and/or her estate, rather than hiding behind your skirts he should simply say so openly, publicly, and unequivocally. Even though in an action for defamation at least one (and perhaps both) of my clients will be under "public figure" disability (and perhaps others), they will be able to use the judicial forum to put Peikoff to his proof and, in the process, disgrace him for making such baseless and scurrilous accusations.
Of course, Peikoff never accepted this challenge, but hearsay from him apparently continued. See Item 2.08 below.
2.07. Holzers' Corroboration of Hessen Declaration
These 2 affidavits are entitled “Holzers' Corroboration of Hessen Declaration” and both are dated November 3, 1998.
The purpose of these affidavits was to provide legal backing for Hessen’s claim to ownership of Rand’s papers. However, they included some very interesting historical anecdotes. They are tangents to the auction, but very charming tangents. (The paragraph numbers have been removed.)
From Erika Holzer’s affidavit:
Erika Holzer said:
I clearly remember sitting on the couch with Ayn Rand and my husband on the evening that he asked her what she had done with the manuscript of TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
I remember this for two reasons. First, I was aware of my husband's interest in having the manuscript as a personal memento. Second, I shared his disappointment when Ayn told us that she had given her manuscripts—including the TO WHOM one—to Bob Hessen.
…
… [attest to…] our daytime trip, with Ayn and her husband Frank, to visit Bob and Bea Hessen in New Jersey to see their new baby, John. I distinctly remember Ayn carrying a shopping bag—"for Bob," she said—and giving it to my husband to carry for her and that Hank put it in the car. I also remember my husband handing it over to Bob after we arrived and Bob making some kind of a quip when he took it and put it away somewhere.
From Henry Holzer’s affidavit:
Henry Mark Holzer said:
In August of 1968 Rand informed me that she had terminated her relationship with Mr. Branden, and that it was necessary for her to issue a public statement in THE OBJECTIVIST MAGAZINE to that effect, giving reasons for what later came to be called "the breakup" with Branden. To that end, she enlisted my help in outlining and drafting an essay entitled TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, which was eventually published in the May 1968 issue of THE OBJECTIVIST MAGAZINE (which actually appeared in October 1968).
In reality, I was the architect of, and had substantial input into every aspect of, that essay. Indeed, a considerable amount of Rand's editing on various drafts of TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN was as a direct result of words, phrases, and sentences that I had actually dictated.
Given the importance of TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN to the many supporters of Ayn Rand, and to the maintenance and continuation of her credibility with her many followers, I was (at that time, but no longer), proud of my contribution to TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, and back in 1968 I took great pleasure in having worked so closely on the article with someone I so admired.
Because of the importance and intensity of events surrounding the Rand- Branden breakup, there was much for me to do in connection with it. Then, once TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN was published in October 1968, I turned my attention to other pressing legal matters on behalf of Ayn Rand. Also, I had the rest of my neglected legal practice to deal with.
However, when from time-to-time over the next few months I thought of TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN it fleetingly crossed my mind that the manuscript of the article might be a wonderful remembrance and keepsake of a time when there had been great camaraderie among those of us on the Rand side of the Rand-Branden breakup, and of a time when I had been able to play a major role in safeguarding and advancing Rand's interests.
At that time Rand, my wife Erika Holzer, and I were working on a film project of Rand's novel WE THE LIVING. One evening, probably early 1969, the three of us were at Rand's apartment discussing the film's editing. I remember the episode as if it were today because in the years since then I have had occasion to relate the anecdote to various people.
Rand was sitting on her couch, my wife to her left and I on her right, which was typical. Although we were discussing the editing of WE THE LIVING, somehow, but not surprisingly, the subject of her breakup with Branden came into the conversation tangentially. That subject triggered my recollection of the events of the previous Fall, and that in turn of the TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN article. Without thinking—doubtless because of my subconscious interest in the TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN manuscript—I spontaneously said to Rand something like: "What did you do with TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN?" Rand was puzzled, and replied to the effect that: "It was published last Fall." I realized that I hadn't been clear enough, perhaps because of my reluctance to ask for the manuscript directly, and said something like: "No, not the article, the manuscript." Rand then understood, and said (and this is a verbatim quote): "I gave it to Bob Hessen." To say I was surprised, would be an understatement. When Rand saw my surprise, she added—and this also is a direct quote—"I give him all the manuscripts" (although Rand did not specify fiction or non-fiction, obviously I understood her to mean non-fiction manuscripts). Trying to mask my surprise (and disappointment), I said something like: "How come?" Rand replied to this effect: "Because he asked me for them." I immediately dropped the subject and never again raised it with Rand. However, in the years that followed, I did mention the incident to others. For example, in the early 1980s, after Rand's death, Barbara Branden interviewed me for her biography of Rand (THE PASSION OF AYN RAND). At that time, I told Barbara what Rand had told me about giving her manuscripts to Bob Hessen.
…
… Robert Hessen has related the story of how my wife and I drove Ayn and Frank to the Hessens' home in New Jersey. Dr. Hessen's recitation is correct, and I can add the following facts. A group of us were invited to see the new baby. Anyone who knew Ayn well in those years can attest to her fears about automobiles. With Nathaniel Branden having been purged, I became Ayn's chauffeur to events which required driving. Thus, I drove Ayn and Frank to the Hessens to see their new baby. It was my custom to pick up Ayn and Frank at their apartment, ride down in the elevator with them, take her arm, escort her through the lobby, and ensconce her in the car which would be waiting at the curb. On the day of the visit to the Hessens, I did just this. Why do I remember it? Because when Ayn answered her doorbell and opened the apartment door, an odd (and embarrassing) thought shot through my mind: She looked like a bag lady. Here was perhaps one of the greatest minds of any age—a short, not young woman—wearing what I thought was a too-large mink coat and carrying a tattered shopping bag. (I assumed it was a baby gift). When we arrived at the Hessens in New Jersey (I think there was snow or ice), I helped Ayn out of the car, took her arm, and, when I relieved her of the shopping bag, I again had the "bag lady" thought. In fairness, I must say that not until last month did I know what was in the shopping bag—but there is no doubt that there was a shopping bag, and that Ayn, and then I, carried it.
2.08. Hessen Responds to Peikoff Innuendo
This document is entitled “Hessen Responds to Peikoff Innuendo” and dated November 1, 1998.
This declaration was made under oath to counter the implied charges of theft made by Peikoff. As with the affidavits above, there are some fascinating historical tangents. One story has already been told in Hessen’s opening speech in the catalogue, but I included it here because more details are presented. (The paragraph numbers have been removed.)
Robert Hessen said:
When Ayn was invited to lecture at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston, her reaction was one of puzzlement. She had never heard of the Forum, but I had, having spent l958-59 in graduate school at Harvard University. I assured Ayn that it was one of the most prestigious lecture halls in America, so she accepted and began a happy relationship with them that lasted many years.
…
When Random House was preparing to publish a new edition of Ayn's first novel, WE THE LIVING, she handed me the dustjacket of the l936 edition, on which she had made some hand-written changes, and I typed the new text. After she proofread what I had typed, she tossed the old jacket into her wastebasket. I reached over, pulled it out, and said: "If you are throwing this away, may I have it, as a keepsake?" She said yes, and that dustjacket became the very first item I ever received from her.
…
I stopped working as Ayn's paid secretary in l96l, but I already had become a close personal friend and confidant. I attended the New Year's Eve party in her apartment on December 31, l96l. I keenly recall the day, a few months later—early in l962—that she asked me as a favor to type a two or three page hand-written manuscript that she had written. When I finished, I brought the pages into her study and she compared her hand-written draft with my typed version. After making some corrections, she started to tear the original in half. I screamed something like: "Stop! What are you doing?" The gist of our conversation follows. Ayn said: "I'm throwing it away." I couldn't believe it, so I responded to the effect that: "How would you feel if one of Aristotle's manuscripts had survived and you were able to see it?" Ayn smiled. "But I have no need for drafts of every article I ever write," she said. "Well, then, if you are going to throw them away, you can give them to me." "What for?" she asked. "What will you do with them?" "Frankly, I don't know," I said, "but someday they may be valuable." "O.K., Bob, but I don't want anyone to see my editing. I will have to rewrite these pages, so no one will see that I changed words or crossed out sentences." "No, no, Ayn, don't do that. I promise never to show them to anyone during your lifetime." She handed me back that first article (which is probably buried somewhere among other documents I still have in storage), and then she systematically gave me her major non-fiction articles for the next fourteen years, until l976. It was the first of nearly 200 manuscripts that Ayn Rand gave me. Over the next 20 years we never again discussed her gifts to me. She just continued to give them.
…
Ayn admired Bea because of the wide range of her talents and interests. Bea was a gifted photographer and the editor of a quarterly magazine for stamp collectors. She managed, during two pregnancies, to write a book and a hundred-page article for THE OBJECTIVIST about the Montessori Method in early education. She delivered her manuscript to Ayn late in l969, but Ayn did not get a chance to read it immediately. One evening early in l970, Bea and I drove from New Jersey to the offices of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette in Manhattan to view a screening of Justice Inc., a film made by Kerry O'Quinn. We arrived late. I spotted Ayn talking to Barbara Branden, Joan Blumenthal, and Elayne Kalberman. When Ayn saw Bea enter the room, she exclaimed: "Oh, Bea darling" and she walked over to kiss her. It was Ayn's way of showing her appreciation for the Montessori essay whose length and excellence would reduce some writing pressures on her for a few months.
…
Unfortunately, Bea and I had a falling out with Ayn in l98l.
When Ayn died on Saturday, March 6, 1982, I was in the middle of a teaching term at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. Nevertheless, I flew to New York to commiserate with Peikoff and his future wife, Cynthia, who had borne the long death-vigil at Ayn's bedside. Sunday night in Peikoff's bedroom, in the presence of Edith Packer, George Reisman and Harry Binswanger, Peikoff told me that "the era of purges and denunciations is over," and that he regarded me as a friend and ally, not an enemy, despite my falling out with Ayn in l981.
…
Around noon on Monday, March 8, l982, at Peikoff's request, I walked with him to East 38th Street in Manhattan, a few blocks from his apartment on 33rd Street, where he took me into a storage warehouse. After he (not I) signed in, a workman took us to a locked room that Peikoff told me was where Ayn had been storing her records. Peikoff did not say for how many years she had been doing so. The room—as I recall it from my one visit sixteen years ago—was roughly eight feet wide, ten feet deep and twelve feet high, and was filled with sealed cartons. Peikoff did not open, and I did not even touch, a single carton during that visit, which lasted less than fifteen minutes. Peikoff and I left the warehouse together. (The atmosphere, by the way, was hardly conducive to leisurely browsing: the room was dark and dank, and it contained no chair or table to work at -- indeed there was little floor room for either.) I do not know if it was Peikoff's first time visiting the storage warehouse, but I do know that it was my first and only time. Not only did I never have "unlimited access" to that room, I never entered it again. I do not recall Peikoff's purpose, if he actually stated one, in taking me to the storage warehouse, but I learned nothing from that one visit except that Ayn had kept a lot of records. I had no idea what period of her life they covered, or what actually was contained in any of the cartons.
…
On six separate occasions (l964, l969, l970, l978, l980 and l981), Ayn voiced her profound displeasure at some conduct of mine—episodes of which Peikoff and others have full knowledge. (This was, by the way, a common pattern in Ayn Rand's circle: nearly everyone—Peikoff included—was scolded, purged, or banished, at least once.) Putting aside the legal consideration that Ayn's manuscript gifts to me were consummated and thus irrevocable, and despite her aforesaid displeasure, she never once asked me to return a single manuscript page that she had given to me, or even mentioned them at all. (I have detailed contemporaneous notes of the l978, l980 and l981 conversations in which she scolded me.) Not only did Ayn never ask for return of the manuscripts, but quite the opposite: After the 1964, 1969 and 1970 episodes, she continued to give me manuscripts.
…
A few months after the birth of my son John in October l969, Ayn made a "home delivery" of her manuscripts. She and Frank, in the presence of Henry and Erika Holzer who drove them, came to our house in Skillman, New Jersey, on the outskirts of Princeton, to see our new baby. Professor Holzer has told me that he clearly recalls the incongruity of Ayn Rand, wearing a luxurious mink coat, carrying a crumpled shopping bag filled with a carton inside. When they arrived, he carried the parcel into our house. I independently confirm that her gift that day was not cookies or a baby blanket, but rather something she knew Bea and I would value much more—the latest of her manuscript writings. I remember my feeling of bemusement when she handed me the shopping bag and I saw that the contents were not gift-wrapped, as one might have expected. Then, of course, I realized what was in the box and that no fancy paper was required to enhance her gift.
Other parts of this declaration concern disputing Peikoff’s implied allegations of theft. I feel bad for Hessen that he was subjected to the indignity of having to defend himself against such a spiteful fraudulent travesty. The historical excerpts above are much fresher and captivating without those parts.
2.09. Statement from Barbara Branden
This document is entitled “Statement from Barbara Branden” and is not dated (see Item 2.10 below for probably date). Here is the entire statement as given:
Quote
In the light of Professor Holzer's announcement, I see no need to offer evidence of my ownership of my property. Peikoff has conceded it.
Barbara Branden
2.10. Holzer: Peikoff Capitulates
This document is entitled “Peikoff Capitulates” and is not dated. As it mentions that the “the auction has been held,” which occurred on November 18, 1998, and the site was closed on November 20, this was most likely published on November 19 or 20.
Some quotes are self-explanatory:
Henry Mark Holzer said:
On the eve of the auction, Peikoff, through his lawyer, Marcia B. Paul, informed Butterfield & Butterfield that the auction could proceed, that he would "raise no legal obstacle," that he would not challenge Branden's or Hessen's title to their manuscripts, and that he would not "claim ownership" of any of their property.
…
Finally, after difficult negotiations carried on by myself and my co-counsel, Manny Klausner of Los Angeles, assisted by Butterfield's house counsel, Bob Shuken, an agreement was reached which will assure scholarly access to Rand's editing on virtually all of her non-fiction writing: Each side will receive a copy of Branden's and Hessen's original manuscripts.
…
Now, in the end, Peikoff has capitulated as to title and ownership, the auction has been held, and copies of the Rand manuscripts will be available not merely to those scholars whom Peikoff and The Ayn Rand Institute deem worthy, but to all scholars, everywhere, for all time.
A few points should be mentioned. The first is that the phrase from Ms. Paul, Peikoff’s attorney, "… strongly suggest that you cannot establish valid title to all of the materials which you intend to offer at Auction," is identified as being from her September 25, 1998 letter. This gives the source for the phrase for the article discussed above by Eric D. Dixon in
Liberty, “Fighting Over Ayn Rand's Papers.”
Also, Holzer mentions that the settlement document stated the following:
Henry Mark Holzer said:
"Peikoff or his designee, may make a copy of any or all of the materials in the auction catalogue…"
In return:
"… Hessen and Branden . . . may make a copy of any or all of the Auction Materials…"
In my original understanding of this, it meant that The Ayn Rand Institute had a copy on file of all the material in the auction catalogue, including the taped interviews used for Barbara Branden’s research in writing
The Passion of Ayn Rand. These are not the interviews she conducted with Ayn Rand in the beginning. These were the ones she made after Rand died with people who knew her.
However, in a private correspondence to me, Barbara stated that the settlement covered only manuscripts, so neither Peikoff nor The Ayn Rand Institute have a copy of her research tapes.
Holzer's statement also means that both Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen each have a full copy of all items in the auction catalogue and that these items can be consulted by scholars. That is very good news.
One condition was negotiated: neither Barbara Branden nor Robert Hessen could sell their copies. Whether or not Peikoff can sell his copy was not mentioned by Holzer, but one presumes that he was bound by the same condition.