Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-02657153DOJ Data Set 11Other

EFTA02657153

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02657153
Pages
6
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: Noam Chomsky < Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:06 PM To: jeffrey E.; Valeria Chomsky Subject: Re: Marital Trust I'll ask directly =div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: The elephant in the room is his sugested split <=div> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wro=e: Ok <mailto On Mon, Ma 21, 2018 at 8:09 PM Noam Chom=ky < > wrote: I'd like to hold off on this for a bi=. I'm curious to learn more about Harry's thinking. I'd like to write to him saying that there's nothing in M=ss law that prevents beneficiaries from doing as I suggested. He can=relieve his concerns about future fiduciary responsibility by resigning, a=d we can return to the situation before I appointed him trustee, when I wa= trustee and had no concerns about fiduciary responsibility. If he f=els that he has carried out past actions that make him liable to some lega= process, he should arrange with his lawyer about ways to protect himself.=C240 I would also like to ask him more directly than before what he think= would be a proper division. Then we can go on from there.</=iv> OK? On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:03 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» Rich Kahn can talk wit= Harry if ok with u On Mon,=May 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM Jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@gmai=.com» wrote: All silly, they can make=s final distribution of 2 million dollars and you and Valeria release all.=Max Harry children and you receive releases - easy EFTA_R1_01903219 EFTA02657153 <mailto <=r> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Noam Cho=sky <nchomsky3=gmail.com > wrote: the=latest. Mass law prevents beneficiaries to divide up a =rust and liquidate it? Forwarded message From: Harry Chomsky < Date: S=n, May 20, 2018 at 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Marital Trust To: Noam Choms=y < Cc: Avi Chomsky < < », Diana Chomsky <mailto > > > > It sounds like you would like me to say yes or no to=your proposal exactly as you have stated it, without further discussion.=C2* I can't do that. Here are some reasons: 1. It'= not permitted under Massachusetts trust law. I agreed to certain ob=igations when I became trustee, and I have to make sure to discharge them =aithfully. Even if you tell me you don't care about my fiduciary=responsibility, the law says I'm responsible anyway. 2. Itl-=;s not specific. For instance, you mention dividing the trust into t=o parts, but you don't say what each part would consist of. It's not complete. For instance, you haven't proposed any w=y to shield us and Max from liability for past actions. It mi=ht be possible to work out all of these problems and develop a legal, spec=fic and complete agreement based on the framework you've proposed...A0 Would you like to engage with me in some kind of process to attempt tha=? Other than having your lawyer talk to mine, do you have any sugges=ion about how to do so? On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:2= PM, Noam Chomsky < <mailto > wrote: I'm glad that you find the idea interesting and thin= that you might consider it, though you have to consult lawyers first. 2 EFTA_R1_01903220 EFTA02657154 My own view is different. To me the proposal I suggested =eems to be a very simple way of settling this matter, which to me is extre=ely troubling. I realize that this is just another case of a longsta=ding difference in the way we approach these problems, a difference that h=s been clear ever since we were discussing the interest on the loan from t=e Trust and found that we could not communicate because I mistakenly assum=d that it was a discussion among family members while your letters made it=very clear and explicit that you saw it as a legal issue to be settled amo=g lawyers and Bainco, perhaps with a mediator in the adversary proceeding.=C2* All matters I find it very hard to comprehend, and to live with, but=so be it. So by all means consult with your lawyer, or perh=ps a battery of lawyers, to make sure that your interests are properly pro=ected. I don't need any lawyer's advice. The matter is=perfectly clear and straightforward. So there is no reason for me to= hire a lawyer to deal with the question and to have a lawyer contact yours=and initiate a discussion in which we all participate. The =atter is very simple. We can proceed without delay if you agree to s=ttle the issue in the simple manner that I suggested. As fo= your proposals in your letter of March 29, as I wrote you, the letter was=so shocking that it was hard for me to bring myself to respond, but I did,=in detail, but decided not to send it. Perhaps I should. Will =hink about it. As for your proposals, my response was the o=vious one. I'm sorry for the stress you had to endure, but your =fforts were a waste of time for reasons I had already fully explained befo=e you undertook them. As I'm sure you recall, a few years ago, l=requested tax payments from the marital trust when my IRA was being rapidl= depleted by my advisers who were distributing half to family and using th= other half to pay management fees and taxes for the entire estate, so tha= to pay Alex's medical expenses and the expenses for Wellfleet I had t= withdraw excess funds with exorbitant taxes, all that before withdrawing =ven a cent to live on again with exorbitant taxes. Your response was=to refuse the request unless I agreed to intrusive and insulting financial=investigations -- of a kind I never considered when providing funds to you=for something you needed. I made it clear and explicit at the time t=at I would not submit to this procedure. Since your efforts and prop=sals simply repeat the same procedure, they were a waste of time. There were some things in your letter that were correct. You84=9;re right that despite what has happened, I'm still a "wealthy m=n," with income well above the median, though lacking a pension and a=cumulated property, not at the level of my peers. Furthermore, I can=supplement my income by teaching large undergraduate courses, something l&=39;d never done and that is not that common for people approaching 90, but=something that I enjoy. And you too are a wealthy man, for the same =easons: the reasons are that I've worked hard all my life, lived fairl= simply (and live even more simply today), and was therefore able to put a=ide enough money to ensure that my children and grandchildren are very wel= cared for, indefinitely. But I again suggest t=at we put all of this aside, and deal quickly and simply with what appears=to be the one outstanding issue: dividing the Marital trust and then disso=ving it, all very simple, needing no lawyers, at least on my part. 0 On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Harry Chomsky <-> wrote: This is an interestin= idea. We could consider it further, but I would need the advice of =y lawyer — and I assume you would want your own lawyer's advic= as well — to ensure that any agreement 3 EFTA_R1_01903221 EFTA02657155 we reach is consistent wit= Massachusetts law and satisfies the interests, needs, and obligations of =verybody involved. Perhaps, as a next step, you could ask your lawye= to contact mine and begin a discussion in which we all participate. =div> I'm also curious to hear your thoughts about the pr=posals I suggested in my message on March 29th. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Noam Chomsky <mailto > wrote: As I wrote = little while ago, I did write a long response to your last -- deeply depr=ssing -- letter, but decided not to send it. I may return to that le=ter later but will keep to some factual matters that ought to be cleared u=. But now I'm writing just about one point, which s=ems to be the core of the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't =nderstand. But let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear =t up soon. All of this is a painful cloud that I never would h=ve imagined would darken my late years. The core =ssue seems to be the marital trust. I've explained how M and I a=tually set it up with Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense.40=A0 I've also explained Max's different interpretation. l'=ve asked you for yours, but haven't heard it. But let's put =hat aside too, and just resolve the matter, as can be done very simply -- =ith no need for lawyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the tru=tee I appointed years ago to replace me, something I never paid any attent=on to before. The simple solution is to divide th= trust into two parts. One part will go to you, to use as you wish.=C24, One part will go to me, for me to use without any investigations of =y financial situation and other such intrusions that I won't accept.=C2. Then the trust can simply be dissolved, and it is all over. So I suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole m=tter -- at least, whatever it is that I understand about what is of concer= to you. 0 4>=AO please note The information contained in this communicati=n is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute=inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. =t is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of =his communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may=be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please n=tify us immediately by 4 EFTA_R1_01903222 EFTA02657156 return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and =estroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachm=nts. copyright -all rights reserved =C21> please note The information contained in this communic=tion is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constit=te inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addresse=. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying =f this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and =ay be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, pleas= notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and<=r>destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all atta=hments. copyright -all rights reserved please note=br> The information contained in this communication is confidential= may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, =nd is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of=br>JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication=or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you =ave received this communication in error, please notify us immediately =y return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] cmailto:[email protected]= target=> , and destroy this communic=tion and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all =ights reserved =C2* please note The information contained in this communication =s confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute in=ide information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It =s the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of thi= communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be=unlawful. If you have received this 5 EFTA_R1_01903223 EFTA02657157 communication in error, please noti=y us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <[email protected]> , and des=roy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachment=. copyright -all rights reserved 6 EFTA_R1_01903224 EFTA02657158

Technical Artifacts (10)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Phone2657153
Phone2657154
Phone2657155
Phone2657156
Phone2657157
Phone2657158

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.