EFTA02657406

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:27 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Marital Trust The elephant in the room is his sugested split <=iv> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM jef=rey E. <[email protected]<=a» wrote: <mailto:[email protected]> Ok </=iv> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:09 P= Noam Chomsky «mailto > wrote: I'd like to hold off on this=for a bit. I'm curious to learn more about Harry's thinking.=br> I'd like to write to him saying that there's not=ing in Mass law that prevents beneficiaries from doing as I suggested. =AO He can relieve his concerns about future fiduciary responsibility by re=igning, and we can return to the situation before I appointed him trustee,=when I was trustee and had no concerns about fiduciary responsibility. =AO If he feels that he has carried out past actions that make him liable t= some legal process, he should arrange with his lawyer about ways to prote=t himself. I would also like to ask him more directly than before wh=t he thinks would be a proper division. Then we can go on fr=m there. OK? <=iv class="m_-1544771743746960951m_-1593438323203754349h5"> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:03 AM= jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Rich Kahn can talk with Harry if ok with u <=div> On Mon, M=y 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.=om» wrote: All silly, they can make s=final distribution of 2 million dollars and you and Valeria release all. M=x Harry children and you receive releases - easy On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Noam Choms=y < <mailto > wrote: the la=est. EFTA_R1_01903603 EFTA02657406 Mass law prevents beneficiaries to divide up a tru=t and liquidate it? <=iv class="gmail_quote"> Forwarded message From: Harry Chomsky < <mailto Date: Sun= May 20, 2018 at 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Marital Trust To: Noam Chomsky=< <mailto Cc: Avi Chomsky < <mailto Diana Chomsky <ra href="mailto 'target="_blank" > > > > > >, It sounds like you would like me to say yes or no to =our proposal exactly as you have stated it, without further discussion. =AO I can't do that. Here are some reasons: 1. It's n=t permitted under Massachusetts trust law. I agreed to certain oblig=tions when I became trustee, and I have to make sure to discharge them fai=hfully. Even if you tell me you don't care about my fiduciary re=ponsibility, the law says I'm responsible anyway. 2. It's=not specific. For instance, you mention dividing the trust into two =arts, but you don't say what each part would consist of. 3. I='s not complete. For instance, you haven't proposed any way =o shield us and Max from liability for past actions. It might-be possible to work out all of these problems and develop a legal, specifi= and complete agreement based on the framework you've proposed. =ould you like to engage with me in some kind of process to attempt that?=C2 Other than having your lawyer talk to mine, do you have any suggesti=n about how to do so? On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Noam Chomsky < > =rote: I'm glad that you find th= idea interesting and think that you might consider it, though you have to=consult lawyers first. My own view is different. To m= the proposal I suggested seems to be a very simple way of settling this m=tter, which to me is extremely troubling. I realize that this is jus= another case of a longstanding difference in the way we approach these pr=blems, a difference that has been clear ever since we were discussing the =nterest on the loan from the Trust and found that we could not communicate=because I mistakenly assumed that it was a discussion among family members=while your letters made it very clear and explicit that you saw it as a le=al issue to be settled among lawyers and Bainco, perhaps with a mediator i= the adversary proceeding. All matters I find it very hard to compre=end, and to live with, but so be it. 2 EFTA_R1_01903604 EFTA02657407 So by all means consul= with your lawyer, or perhaps a battery of lawyers, to make sure that your=interests are properly protected. I don't need any lawyer's =dvice. The matter is perfectly clear and straightforward. So t=ere is no reason for me to hire a lawyer to deal with the question and to =ave a lawyer contact yours and initiate a discussion in which we all parti=ipate. The matter is very simple. We can proceed with=ut delay if you agree to settle the issue in the simple manner that I sugg=sted. As for your proposals in your letter of March 29, as = wrote you, the letter was so shocking that it was hard for me to bring my=elf to respond, but I did, in detail, but decided not to send it. Pe=haps I should. Will think about it. As for your propo=als, my response was the obvious one. I'm sorry for the stress y=u had to endure, but your efforts were a waste of time for reasons I had a=ready fully explained before you undertook them. As I'm sure you=recall, a few years ago, I requested tax payments from the marital trust w=en my IRA was being rapidly depleted by my advisers who were distributing =alf to family and using the other half to pay management fees and taxes fo= the entire estate, so that to pay Alex's medical expenses and the exp=nses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess funds with exorbitant taxes, a=l that before withdrawing even a cent to live on again with exorbitant tax=s. Your response was to refuse the request unless I agreed to intrus=ve and insulting financial investigations -- of a kind I never considered =hen providing funds to you for something you needed. I made it clear=and explicit at the time that I would not submit to this procedure. =ince your efforts and proposals simply repeat the same procedure, they wer= a waste of time. There were some things in your letter tha= were correct. You're right that despite what has happened, I Hm still a "wealthy man," with income well above the median, tho=gh lacking a pension and accumulated property, not at the level of my peer=. Furthermore, I can supplement my income by teaching large undergra=uate courses, something I'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 reasons: the reasons are that I've worked ha=d all my life, lived fairly simply (and live even more simply today), and =as therefore able to put aside enough money to ensure that my children and=grandchildren are very well cared for, indefinitely. =/div> But I again suggest that we put all of this aside, and deal quickly a=d simply with what appears to be the one outstanding issue: dividing the M=rital trust and then dissolving it, all very simple, needing no lawyers, a= least on my part. 0 On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Harry C=omsky < <mailto > wrote: This is an interesting idea. We could consider it further, but = would need the advice of my lawyer — and I assume you would want =our own lawyer's advice as well — to ensure that any agreement=we reach is consistent with Massachusetts law and satisfies the interests,=needs, and obligations of everybody involved. Perhaps, as a next ste=, you could ask your lawyer to contact mine and begin a discussion in whic= we all participate. I'm also curious to hear=your thoughts about the proposals I suggested in my message on March 29th.=/div> 3 EFTA_R1_01903605 EFTA02657408 On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Noam Chomsky <I >=wrote: As I wrote a little while ago= I did write a long response to your last -- deeply depressing -- letter, =ut decided not to send it. I may return to that letter later but wil= keep to some factual matters that ought to be cleared up. <=iv>But now I'm writing just about one point, which seems to be the cor= of the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't understand. =ut let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear it up soon. =11 of this is a painful cloud that I never would have imagined would=darken my late years. The core issue seems to be =he marital trust. I've explained how M and I actually set it up =ith Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense. I've also =xplained Max's different interpretation. I've asked you for =ours, but haven't heard it. But let's put that aside too, an= just resolve the matter, as can be done very simply -- with no need for l=wyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the trustee I appointed y=ars ago to replace me, something I never paid any attention to before. The simple solution is to divide the trust into two p=rts. One part will go to you, to use as you wish. One part wil= go to me, for me to use without any investigations of my financial situat=on and other such intrusions that I won't accept. Then the trust=can simply be dissolved, and it is all over. So l=suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole matter -- at least, wh=tever it is that I understand about what is of concern to you. <=r> 0 please note<=r> The information contained in this communication is confidential,=may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, a=d is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of<=r>JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication =r any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you h=ve received this communication in error, please notify us immediately b= return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> and destroy this communica=ion and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all r=ghts reserved =C2 please note 4 EFTA_R1_01903606 EFTA02657409 The informat=on contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-cli=nt privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only =or the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthoriz=d use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof =s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this return e-mail o= by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication and all copies =hereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved </=iv> =C2 please note The informat=on contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-cli=nt privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only =or the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthoriz=d use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof =s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this return e-mail o= by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication and all copies =hereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 4 -iv> =C2 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> 5 EFTA_R1_01903607 EFTA02657410 --0000000000006560d4056cbb72b8-- conversation-id 5434 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1526927217 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 822943 6 EFTA_R1_01903608 EFTA02657411