Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-02656396DOJ Data Set 11Other

EFTA02656396

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02656396
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
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 Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainchomsky.net
Phone2656396
Phone2656397
Phone2656398
Phone2656399
Phone2656400
Phone6930549

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.