Case File
efta-02656396DOJ Data Set 11OtherEFTA02656396
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02656396
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
jeffrey E. <[email protected]>
Sent:
Monday, May 21, 2018 7:22 PM
To:
Noam Chomsky
Subject:
Re: Marital Trust
once you get the proposed split. there are many mech=nisms , releases etc. they will want you to =ave a lawyer so
that they can protect against a future lawsuit based=on not full understanding , it is common. *=A0 FYI, according
to max. harrys position is that =arol would not have wanted her portion of the money to go to valeria=
its a silly
argument. . =C240 with releases from all , valeria you harry a=d your daughters anytihing is possible. . you
will=need to include an agreement not to attack your will. to protect val=ria.
On Mo=, May 21, 2018 at 9:06 PM Noam Chomsky <
I'll ask directly
» wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM, jeffre= E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]»
wrote:
> wrote:
The elephant in the room is his sugested split*=A0
On Mon, May =1, 2018 at 8:11 PM jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Ok
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:09 PM Noam Chomsky <
> wrote=
<=iv>
I'd like to hold off on this for a bit. I'm curious =o learn more about Harry's thinking.
I'd like to=write to him saying that there's nothing in Mass law that prevents ben=ficiaries from
doing as I suggested. He can relieve his concerns abo=t future fiduciary responsibility by resigning, and we can return to
the s=tuation before I appointed him trustee, when I was trustee and had no conc=rns about fiduciary responsibility. If
he feels that he has carried =ut past actions that make him liable to some legal process, he should arra=ge with his
lawyer about ways to protect himself. I would also like =o ask him more directly than before what he thinks would be a
proper divis=on.
Then we can go on from there.
OK?
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:03 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail=om
<mailto:[email protected]» wrote:
EFTA_R1_01902108
EFTA02656396
Rich =ahn can talk with Harry if ok with u
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at=10:13 AM Jeffrey E. «mailto:[email protected]>
All silly, they can makes final distrib=tion of 2 million dollars and you and Valeria
release all. Max Harry child=en and you receive releases - easy
<mailto
><=r>Cc: Avi Chomsky <
> >, Diana Chomsky <
It sounds like you would like me to say yes or no to your proposal ex=ctly as you have
stated it, without further discussion. I can't =o that. Here are some reasons:
1.
It's not permitted und=r Massachusetts trust law. I agreed to certain obligations
when I be=ame trustee, and I have to make sure to discharge them faithfully. E=en if you tell me you don't care about
my fiduciary responsibility, th= law says I'm responsible anyway.
2.
It's not specific.=C21, For instance, you mention dividing the trust into two
parts, but you=don't say what each part would consist of.
3.
It's not co=plete. For instance, you haven't proposed any way to shield us a=d
Max from liability for past actions.
It might be possible t= work out all of these problems and develop a legal, specific and
complete=agreement based on the framework you've proposed. Would you like=to engage with me in some kind of
process to attempt that? Other tha= having your lawyer talk to mine, do you have any suggestion about how to =o so?
On =at, May 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Noam Chomsky <
<mailto:[email protected]» wrote=
I'm glad that you find the ide= interesting and think that you might consider it,
though you have to cons=lt lawyers first.
My own view is different. To me the=proposal I suggested seems to be a very
simple way of settling this matter= which to me is extremely troubling. I realize that this is just ano=her case of a
longstanding difference in the way we approach these problem., a difference that has been clear ever since we were
discussing the inter=st on the loan from the Trust and found that we could not communicate beca=se I mistakenly
assumed that it was a discussion among family members whil= your letters made it very clear and explicit that you saw it
as a legal i=sue to be settled among lawyers and Bainco, perhaps with a mediator in the=adversary proceeding. All
matters I find it very hard to comprehend,=and to live with, but so be it.
So by all means consult wit= your lawyer, or perhaps a battery of lawyers, to
make sure that your inte=ests are properly protected. I don't need any lawyer's advic=. The matter is perfectly clear
and straightforward. So there =s no reason for me to hire a lawyer to deal with the question and to have = lawyer
contact yours and initiate a discussion in which we all participat=.
2
EFTA_R1_01902109
EFTA02656397
The matter is very simple. We can proceed without d=lay if you agree to settle
the issue in the simple manner that I suggested=
As for your proposals in your letter of March 29, as I wro=e you, the letter was
so shocking that it was hard for me to bring myself =o respond, but I did, in detail, but decided not to send it. Perhaps=l
should. Will think about it.
As for your proposals,=my response was the obvious one. I'm sorry for the
stress you ha= to endure, but your efforts were a waste of time for reasons I had alread= fully explained before you
undertook them. As I'm sure you reca=l, a few years ago, I requested tax payments from the marital trust when m= IRA
was being rapidly depleted by my advisers who were distributing half =o family and using the other half to pay
management fees and taxes for the=entire estate, so that to pay Alex's medical expenses and the expenses=for
Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess funds with exorbitant taxes, all th=t before withdrawing even a cent to live on again
with exorbitant taxes..C240 Your response was to refuse the request unless I agreed to intrusive=and insulting financial
investigations -- of a kind I never considered whe= providing funds to you for something you needed. I made it clear an=
explicit at the time that I would not submit to this procedure. Sin=e your efforts and proposals simply repeat the same
procedure, they were a=waste of time.
There were some things in your letter that w=re correct. You're right that
despite what has happened, I'm=still a "wealthy man," with income well above the median, though=lacking a pension
and accumulated property, not at the level of my peers.=C2* Furthermore, I can supplement my income by teaching
large undergradu=te courses, something I'd never done and that is not that common for p=ople approaching 90, but
something that I enjoy. And you too are a w=althy man, for the same reasons: the reasons are that I've worked hard=all
my life, lived fairly simply (and live even more simply today), and wa= therefore able to put aside enough money to
ensure that my children and g=andchildren are very well cared for, indefinitely.
</=iv>
But I again suggest that we put all of this aside, and deal quickly and=simply
with what appears to be the one outstanding issue: dividing the Mar=tal trust and then dissolving it, all very simple,
needing no lawyers, at =east on my part.
0
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Harry Cho=sky <harry=chomsky.net
» wrote:
<=iv>This is an interesting idea. We could consider it further, but I =ould need
the advice of my lawyer — and I assume you would want yo=r own lawyer's advice as well — to ensure that any
agreement w= reach is consistent with Massachusetts law and satisfies the interests, n=eds, and obligations of
everybody involved. Perhaps, as a next step,=you could ask your lawyer to contact mine and begin a discussion in which
=e all participate.
I'm also curious to hear y=ur thoughts about the proposals I suggested in my
message on March 29th.</=iv>
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Noam Chomsky
=; wrote:
3
EFTA_R1_01902110
EFTA02656398
As I wrote a little =hile ago, I did write a long response to your last -- deeply
depressing --=letter, but decided not to send it. I may return to that letter late= but will keep to some factual matters
that ought to be cleared up.
But now I'm writing just about one point, which seems to b= the core of the
problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't understan=. But let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear it up soo=.
All of this is a painful cloud that I never would have imagi=ed would darken my late years.
The core issue see=s to be the marital trust. I've explained how M and I actually
s=t it up with Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense. I'=ve also explained Max's different interpretation. I've
asked=you for yours, but haven't heard it. But let's put that asid= too, and just resolve the matter, as can be done very
simply -- with no n=ed for lawyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the trustee I ap=ointed years ago to replace
me, something I never paid any attention to be=ore.
The simple solution is to divide the trust i=to two parts. One part will go to you,
to use as you wish. One=part will go to me, for me to use without any investigations of my financi=l situation and other
such intrusions that I won't accept. Then =he trust can simply be dissolved, and it is all over.
=div>So I suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole matter -- at
=east, whatever it is that I understand about what is of concern to you.
0
=C240
please note
The information containe= in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileg=d, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the u=e of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disc=osure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly =rohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communicati=n in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail =o jeevacation@g=ail.com <mailtoieevacation@gmail,com> ,
and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
=ncluding all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
</=iv>
please note
T=e information contained in this communication is
4
EFTA_R1_01902111
EFTA02656399
confidential, may be a=torney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is int=nded only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
communication or any pa=t thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have recei=ed this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
retu=n e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
, and
destroy this communication an= all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights r=served
[email protected], and
destroy this communication and all copi=s thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
=C24,
please note
The information co=tained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client pr=vileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
JEE
Unauthorized use= disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is str=ctly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
commu=ication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e=mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and
destroy this communication and all copies thereo=,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
</=iv>
--0000000000000b8990056cbc39bf-- conversation-id 5434 date-last-viewed 0 date-received
1526930549 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 822978
5
EFTA_R1_01902112
EFTA02656400
Technical Artifacts (10)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Domain
chomsky.netEmail
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Phone
2656396Phone
2656397Phone
2656398Phone
2656399Phone
2656400Phone
6930549Related Documents (6)
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.